BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT and BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION

FOR THE

Lassen 15 Restoration Project

Modoc National Forest

Prepared by:

Mary Flores /s/ Mary Flores 28 October 2017

John Clark /s/ John Clark 28 October 2017 I. INTRODUCTION This Biological Assessment/Evaluation (BA/BE) documents the potential effects to terrestrial USDA Forest Service Region 5 wildlife species by the implementation of activities considered in the Lassen 15 Restoration Project (Lassen 15 Project) Environmental Analysis. The Lassen 15 project area is located on the Warner Mountain Ranger District roughly five air miles northeast of Davis Creek, California. The proposed project area is 25,276 acres, although only 8,004 acres are targeted for treatment.

Biological Assessments and Evaluations document the analysis necessary to ensure proposed management actions would not jeopardize the continued existence of, or cause adverse modification of habitat for federally listed or Forest Service sensitive species as described in the Forest Service Manual (FSM section 2672.43) (USFS 2005). This BA/BE was prepared in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and follows standards established in Forest Service Manual direction (FSM 2671.2 and 2672.42) for threatened, endangered and sensitive (TES) wildlife species.

The determination of whether to include wildlife species in this analysis was based on review of (1) the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service IPAC data (website accessed on 22 October 2015) and (2) Forest Service Region 5 sensitive species list (October 2013). Table 1 displays whether the project is within the range of the species, whether suitable habitat is contained within or adjacent to the project, and whether the species has been previously detected within the area. Geographical Information System (GIS) queries for Table 1 used a minimum 3-mile radius from the project area unless otherwise noted. State designations came from the following website: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109405&inline.

Table 1. List of TES terrestrial wildlife species on the Modoc National Forest and the status of each within the Lassen 15 Project Area. Species Suitable detected habitat TES within or within or Species name Species addressed in this document? status adjacent to adjacent project to project area? area? Gray wolf (Canis lupus) FE, SE No Yes No, there have been no wolf dens or rendezvous sites detected within the project area to date. Northern spotted owl FT, ST No No No, project is outside range of species, which (Strix occidentalis consists of the Medicine Lake Highlands for caurina) the Modoc NF. Yellow-billed cuckoo FT, SE No No No, there are no suitable riparian forests (Coccyzus americanus within the project area. In addition, the USFS occidentalis) Pacific Southwest Regional Office did not include the Modoc NF in the range of this species on their most recent species list. Fisher (Pekania pennanti) FP, No No No, the USFS Pacific Southwest Regional ST, Office did not include the Modoc NF in the FSS range of this species.

2 Species Suitable detected habitat TES within or within or Species name Species addressed in this document? status adjacent to adjacent project to project area? area? Greater sage-grouse FC, FSS No No No, there are no large expanses of sagebrush in (Centrocersus the Lassen 15 project; there is no occupied urophasianus) habitat near the project area Pacific marten (Martes FSS No Yes Yes caurina) Bald eagle (Haliaeetus FSS Yes Yes Yes leucocephalus) Bing’s checkerspot FSS, SE No Yes No, suitable habitat is found outside of butterfly (Euphydryas proposed treatment units. editha bingi) California spotted owl FSS No No No, the project is outside range of species, (Strix occidentalis which is exclusively found on Manzanita occidentalis) Peak, Modoc NF. California wolverine (Gulo PT, ST No Yes No, there is a lack of remote, high-elevation gulo luscus) habitat within proposed treatment units. Fringed myotis (Myotis FSS No Yes Yes thysanodes) Great gray owl (Strix FSS, SE No Yes Yes nebulosa) Greater sandhill crane FSS Yes No No, cranes have been sighted foraging in (Grus canadensis tabida) Bear Valley in unsuitable nesting habitat; RCA standards would protect habitat. Northern goshawk FSS Yes Yes Yes (Accipiter gentilis) Pallid bat (Antrozous FSS No Yes Yes pallidus) Pygmy rabbit FSS No No No, there are no suitable sagebrush stands (Brachylagus idahoensis) with friable soils within or adjacent to the project area. Townsend’s big-eared bat FSS No No No, due to lack of roost habitat in or near (Corynorhinus townsendii) project area. Western bumble bee FSS No Yes Yes. Species will be covered in a separate (Bombus occidentalis) document.

Symbols used: FT = threatened, FP= proposed for listing, FC = candidate for listing, FSS = Region 5 Forest Service sensitive, SE = State Endangered, ST = State Threatened

Gray wolf Based on information from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the historical range of the wolf in California most likely included the Sierra Nevada, southern Cascades, Modoc Plateau, Klamath Mountains and perhaps the North Coast Ranges. Although wolves were extirpated from California nearly 90 years ago, there have been unconfirmed sightings of wolves within and around Modoc County within the past few years. The first wolf to enter California, since they had been extirpated, was OR-7. He entered California on 28 December 2011, and has returned to Oregon. Confirmed wolf sightings have been made in Modoc (California), Siskiyou (California), Klamath (Oregon), and Lake (Oregon) counties, since the summer of 2015. The

3 closest known den site to the Lassen Creek Project Area is in Lake County (Oregon) roughly 65 air miles northwest. The Lassen Pack is approximately 100 miles from the Lassen 15 project area (T. Rickman, pers. comm.).

Wolves were delisted in eastern Oregon; they remain listed in western Oregon and in California. Any individuals found on the Modoc NF would be treated as listed. Based on a discussion with the USFWS staff, if a den site were located or pups were detected, consultation would occur (D. Blake and E. Willy, pers. comm.).

Wolves’ primary habitat requirements are the presence of adequate water and prey, mainly elk and deer (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/wolf/FAQ.html). All of the acres within the Lassen 15 project area would be considered as suitable habitat.

As evidenced by recent wolf behavior, there are no barriers to dispersal either north into Oregon or south into the Sierra Nevada. The proposed thinning and burning may improve the habitat for wolf prey species. If a wolf den or pups were detected during layout or implementation, activities would be halted and the USFWS would be contacted to begin emergency consultation. Given the lack of confirmed wolf dens in spite of several unconfirmed wolf sightings near the project area and the habitat generalist nature of wolves, the implementation of the activities discussed in the action alternative of the Lassen 15 EA would have no effect on gray wolf; the no action alternative would also have no effect on gray wolf.

Riparian Dependent Species

Willow Flycatcher Willow flycatcher was formerly a sensitive species for the Modoc NF. No breeding pairs have been detected in twenty years of surveys on the Forest; therefore, the Pacific Southwest Regional Office removed it from the Modoc NF’s sensitive species list and it is not analyzed within this document. However, it was addressed in the Migratory Landbird Conservation Report prepared for this project.

Bald Eagle Multiple creeks and wet meadows are present within and adjacent to the project area. Bald eagle will be discussed in the Effects of Proposed Project section.

Greater Sandhill Crane Although greater sandhill cranes have been detected foraging on two separate occasions in the past in Bear Valley and due west of the Forest boundary on private lands (T46 N, R14 E, section 2), there is no freshwater emergent nesting habitat within the project area. Best Management Practices would protect meadow habitat, where they were seen foraging; currently there are no activities planned in riparian vegetation in Bear Valley. Road improvements would be of short- term duration; given the sporadic appearance of cranes in the Bear Valley area, effects from disturbance would be discountable. Therefore, there would be no effect to sandhill cranes by the implementation of the no action or action alternatives proposed in the Lassen 15 EA.

4 Yellow-Billed Cuckoo Although the yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) occurs on the USFWS species list for Modoc County, there has been no record of this species for the Modoc National Forest in any of the data sets available to the Forest. Modoc County was not included in the historical distribution of cuckoos for California in the petition to list this species dated 25 July 2001. In addition, cuckoos have not been detected during various riparian bird surveys conducted in potential habitat locally (e.g. Point Reyes Bird Observatory and Great Basin Bird Observatory surveys on Bureau of Land Management lands from 1997 to 1999 and from 2002 to 2004; BBS). Finally, the USFS Pacific Southwest Regional Office did not include the Modoc NF in the range of this species on their most recent species list.

In California, the yellow-billed cuckoos’ presence is limited to the breeding season. Nesting habitat for this species includes dense stands of various riparian species including willow (Salix sp.) and cottonwood (Populus sp.). They nest most frequently in willows, while cottonwoods are used extensively for foraging. Yellow-billed cuckoos are primarily insectivorous and forage mainly on tree and shrub branches (Hughes 1999).

Canopy height in occupied habitat was 5–30 m (16-98 feet); understory height 1–6 m (3-20 feet) (Laymon and Halterman 1989 in Hughes 2015). Patch size of habitat inhabited by cuckoos along the Sacramento River was 25 acres and greater (Gaines 1974 and Laymon et al 1993 in USFWS 2001) and 99 acres (Halterman 1991 in USFWS 2001); they preferred patches of riparian habitat that were greater than 81 ha (447 acres) in size and at least 100 m (328 feet) in width (USFWS 2013 in Hughes 2015). Home ranges on the south fork of the Kern River were roughly 42 acres (Laymon et al 1993 in the listing package). Cuckoos are generally absent from heavily forested areas and large urban areas (Eaton 1988 in Hughes 2015).

A total of 177 acres are typed as Montane Riparian (MRI) within the project area. Although there are willow thickets along the various creeks within the Lassen 15 project area, the willow structure is not like areas occupied by cuckoos in other portions of the state. The riparian patches within the Lassen 15 project area are comprised of willow shrub thickets (which topped out at roughly fifteen feet tall) while in other areas of California willows have more treelike structures. In addition, the willows in the Lassen 15 project area are significantly shorter than the occupied habitats in other portions of the state.

Given the lack of compelling presence data and the fact that treatments are designed to enhance or avoid riparian vegetation, there is a “No effect” determination for this species.

Sagebrush Dependent Species A total of 4,931 acres are typed as sagebrush within the project area. The largest patch size is 168 acres, which is adjacent to units 311-12 A and B. These plantations are scheduled for mastication and follow-up burning.

Pygmy rabbit There is no known occupied pygmy rabbit habitat on the Modoc (Modoc NF NRIS electronic files) or Fremont- Winema NFs (T. Forbes, pers. comm.). The closest occupied habitat is on the Surprise Field Station in Nevada in sagebrush flats with soils capable of excavation (E. Flores, pers. comm.). Burrows tend to be in sandy loam soils (Ulmschneider 2004).

5

Ulmschneider (2004) state the following. “At the landscape scale, pygmy rabbits are found in alluvial fans, swales in a rolling landscape, large flat valleys, at the foot of mountains, along creek and drainage bottoms, in basins in the mountains, or other landscape features where soil may have accumulated to greater depths. They are generally on flatter ground, sometimes on moderate slopes, and not on steep ground … In Nevada pygmy rabbits are found in broad valley floors, drainage bottoms, alluvial fans, and other areas with friable soils.” None of this type of habitat is scheduled for treatment under the proposed action for the Lassen 15 project area; therefore, implementation of either the action or the no action alternative would have no effect on pygmy rabbit or its habitat.

Greater sage-grouse The closest occupied sage-grouse leks are about twelve miles northeast of the project area on the USDI Bureau of Land Management Surprise Field Station. Currently, occupied sage grouse habitat on the Modoc NF is focused in large expanses of sagebrush around Clear Lake on the Doublehead Ranger District, which is 42 air miles northwest of the Lassen 15 Project Area.

Historically, sage grouse were only found in the areas with large sagebrush expanses like the Twelve Mile Creek area on the Warner Mountain RD. The closest historic lek was adjacent to Goose Lake and was 6.77 miles southwest of the project area. During a recent sage grouse habitat typing effort, most of the Warner Mountain RD was excluded. Due to the very low likelihood of sage-grouse presence in the project area and the fact that treatments would only negatively affect small patches of sagebrush (e.g. landing sized areas) outside of large sagebrush polygons, implementation of the Lassen 15 project would have no effect on greater sage-grouse or its habitat.

Bing’s checkerspot According to Baughman and Murphy (1998), Bing’s checkerspot (Euphydryas editha bingi) occurs in open areas on the upper slopes of Mt. Emerson in the Warner Mountains of Modoc County at elevations of about 8,200 ft (2,500 m). This subspecies appears to occupy the zone below the mountain summit and “crestline”, and above the sparse limber pine (Pinus flexilis) and juniper forests (Juniperus occidentalis ssp. occidentalis and ssp. australis). Predominant ground vegetation in these areas is sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata and other spp.), mule’s ears (Wyethia spp.), and lupines (Lupinus spp.). This habitat type does not occur within any of the proposed treatment units.

To re-iterate, there will be no effect to pygmy rabbit, greater sage grouse, or Bing’s checkerspot by the implementation of the no action or action alternatives proposed in Lassen 15 Project.

Cave Dependent Species Townsend’s big-eared bats have not been detected near or within the project boundaries. The Lassen 15 project area does not contain caves or cave analogs that could support this species. Therefore, there would be no effect to Townsend’s bats by the implementation of the Lassen 15 project.

Fringed myotis and pallid bat will be discussed in the Effects of Proposed Project section.

6 Forest Carnivores There have been no sightings of Region 5 Forest Service sensitive carnivore species within the project area. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the project would affect fisher or wolverine for the following reasons.

Fisher The Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USFS 2001) Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.4, pg 4, states the Modoc National Forest is not within the distribution for fisher. The assessment conducted for the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment was based on the vast amount of work conducted by Dr. William Zielinski, USDA Forest Service, Region 5 forest carnivore expert, and others.

California wolverine Wolverines prefer remote, high-elevation, habitats often above tree line (USFS 2001, Chapter 3, pg 45). Authors in the 1994 Forest Carnivore Assessment (Ruggiero et al. 1994) noted that “habitat is probably best defined in terms of adequate year-round food supplies in sparsely inhabited wilderness areas, rather than particular types of topography or plant associations.” The roadless areas adjacent to the Lassen 15 project area have the greatest potential to serve as habitat.

Wolverines have vast home ranges. Adult females with young used areas greater than 24,700 acres, which was one of the smallest home ranges found in the assessment (Ruggiero et al. 1994). This type of habitat occurs at the south end of the project area outside of any proposed units. Given wolverines’ predilection for the avoidance of humans, their large home ranges, and the lack of sightings within the project area, implementation of the Lassen 15 project is not expected to affect this species.

To summarize, there are no anticipated effects to fisher or wolverine or their habitats by implementation of either the no action or the action alternatives found in the Lassen 15 EA. Pacific marten will be discussed in the Effects of Proposed Action section below.

Summary: Based on the information above, Pacific marten, bald eagle, fringed myotis, great gray owl, northern goshawk, pallid bat, and western bumble bee are the only USFS sensitive species potentially impacted by the Lassen 15 project. They will be carried forward for further analysis. The western bumble bee is covered in a separate document.

II. CURRENT MANAGEMENT DIRECTION General Direction: Forest Service Manual direction states that Forests, “conduct activities and programs to assist in the identification and recovery of threatened and endangered plant and animal species... Through the biological evaluation process, review actions and programs authorized, funded and carried out by the Forest Service to determine their effect on threatened and endangered species and species proposed for listing.” The manual also states that, Forests should “Identify and prescribe measures to prevent adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat and other habitats essential for the conservation of endangered, threatened, and proposed species. Protect individual organisms or populations from harm or harassment as appropriate.”

7

Legislation: The following Acts could have management implications for the species covered within this document.

The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668c), enacted in 1940, and amended several times since then, prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from "taking" bald eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs. The Act provides criminal penalties for persons who "take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or any manner, any bald eagle ... [or any golden eagle], alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof." The Act defines "take" as "pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb."

"Disturb" means: “to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, 1) injury to an eagle, 2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or 3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior."

In addition to immediate impacts, this definition also covers impacts that result from human- induced alterations initiated around a previously used nest site during a time when eagles are not present, if, upon the eagle's return, such alterations agitate or bother an eagle to a degree that interferes with or interrupts normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering habits, and causes injury, death or nest abandonment.

A violation of the Act can result in a fine of $100,000 ($200,000 for organizations), imprisonment for one year, or both, for a first offense. Penalties increase substantially for additional offenses, and a second violation of this Act is a felony.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act makes it illegal for anyone to take, possess, import, export, transport, sell, purchase, barter, or offer for sale, purchase, or barter, any migratory bird, or the parts, nests, or eggs of such a bird except under the terms of a valid permit issued pursuant to Federal regulations. The migratory bird species protected by the Act are listed in 50 CFR 10.13. Public Law 95-616 also ratified a treaty with the Soviet Union specifying that both nations will take measures to protect identified ecosystems of special importance to migratory birds from pollution, detrimental alterations, and other environmental degradations.”

Standards and Guidelines from the Modoc Forest Plan: There is no Modoc NF LRMP management direction for fringed myotis, great gray owl, or pallid bat. The various species that are covered within the Modoc LRMP are discussed in the sections below.

American Marten (now Pacific marten) Marten was one of the focal species for the Sierra Nevada framework; therefore, the Modoc LRMP direction for this species has been superseded by the framework. See the Sierra Nevada Framework section for direction for marten.

8 Bald Eagle The Modoc National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) direction for the bald eagles from page 4-26 is paraphrased below:

A. Implement the Bald Eagle Recovery Plan as applicable to the Modoc National Forest. B. Manage habitats according to the Raptor Management Prescription. C. Survey and manage occupied and potential sites.

Additional direction is found in the Raptor Management Prescription (USDA Forest Service 1991 pg 4-89).

Timber management activities will be scheduled within active nest territories and within1/4 mile of foraging and loafing trees between August 15 and November 1.

Specific direction is found in the Pacific Bald Eagle Recovery Plan (USFWS 1986) is part of the Modoc NF LRMP (USDA Forest Service 1991). The Pacific Bald Eagle Recovery Plan provides explicit direction for habitat management and population goals. Direction that is specific to these timber harvest projects includes the following:

 Manage timber stands used by eagles to prevent insect infestations where appropriate (1.3212 found on page 49).  Manage young tree stands to meet desired physical characteristics (1.3221 found on pg 51). Establish buffer zones around nest sites (1.331 found on pg 53).  Exclude logging, construction, habitat improvement, and other activities during critical periods of eagle use (1.332 found on pg 53).

Northern Goshawk Northern goshawk was another of the focal species for the Sierra Nevada Framework; therefore, the Modoc LRMP direction for this species has been superseded by the framework. See the Sierra Nevada Framework pages 38 and 59 of the 2004 ROD for direction for northern goshawk.

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (2004): There is no Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment management direction for fringed myotis. The various species that are covered within the Sierra Nevada Framework are discussed in the sections below.

American Marten (now Pacific marten) Designation (pg 39) Marten den sites are 100-acre buffers consisting of the highest quality habitat in a compact arrangement surrounding the den site. CWHR types 6, 5D, 5M, 4D, and 4M in descending order of priority, based on availability, provide highest quality habitat for the marten.

Desired Conditions (pg 39) Areas surrounding marten den sites have (1) at least two conifers per acre greater than 24 inches dbh with suitable denning cavities, (2) canopy closures exceeding 60 percent, (3) more than 10

9 tons per acre of coarse woody debris in decay classes 1 and 2, and (4) an average of 6 snags per acre on the westside and 3 per acre on the eastside.

Habitat Connectivity for Old Forest Associated Species (pg 53) 1. Minimize old forest habitat fragmentations. Assess potential impacts of fragmentation on old forest associated species (particularly fisher and marten) in biological evaluations. 2. Assess the potential impact of projects on the connectivity of habitat for old forest associated species. 3. Consider retaining forested linkages (with canopy cover greater than 40 percent) that are inter connected via riparian areas and ridgetop saddles during project-level analysis. 4. If fishers are detected outside the southern Sierra fisher conservation area, evaluate habitat conditions and implement appropriate mitigation measures to retain suitable habitat within the estimated home range. Institute project-level surveys over the appropriate area, as determined by an interdisciplinary team. 5. Identify areas for acquisition, exchange, or conservation easements to enhance connectivity of habitat for old forest associated species.

Standards and Guidelines for Marten Den Sites (pg 62) Protect marten den site buffers from disturbance from vegetation treatments with a limited operating period (LOP) from May 1 through July 31 as long as habitat remains suitable or until another Regionally-approved management strategy is implemented. The LOP may be waived for individual projects of limited scope and duration, when a biological evaluation documents that such projects are unlikely to result in breeding disturbance considering their intensity, duration, timing, and specific location.

Mitigate impacts where there is documented evidence of disturbance to the den site from existing recreation, off highway vehicle route, trail, and road uses (including road maintenance). Evaluate proposals for new roads, trails, off highway vehicle routes, and recreational and other developments for their potential to disturb den sites.

Great Gray Owl Designation Protected activity centers (PACs) are established and maintained to include the forested area and adjacent meadow around all known great gray owl nest stands. The PAC encompasses at least 50 acres of the highest quality nesting habitat (CWHR types 6, 5D, and 5M) available in the forested area surrounding the nest. The PAC also includes the meadow or meadow complex that supports the prey base for nesting owls. (USDA Forest Service 2004 pg 38)

Desired Conditions Meadow vegetation in great gray owl PACs supports a sufficiently large meadow vole population to provide a food source for great gray owls through the reproductive period. (USDA Forest Service 2004 pg 39).

10 Great Gray Owl Surveys Conduct additional surveys to established protocols to follow-up reliable sightings of great gray owls. (USDA Forest Service 2004 pg 54).

Standards and Guidelines for Great Gray Owl (pg 61) Protected Activity Centers 1. Apply a limited operating period, prohibiting vegetation treatments and road construction within ¼ mile of an active great gray owl nest stand, during the nesting period (typically March 1 to August 15). The LOP may be waived for vegetation treatments of limited scope and duration, when a biological evaluation determines that such projects are unlikely to result in breeding disturbance considering their intensity, duration, timing and specific location. Where a biological evaluation concludes that a nest site would be shielded from planned activities by topographic features that would minimize disturbance, the LOP buffer distance may be reduced. 2. In meadow areas of great gray owl PACs, maintain herbaceous vegetation at a height commensurate with site capability and habitat needs of prey species. Follow regional guidance to determine potential prey species and associated habitat requirements at the project level.

Northern Goshawk Designation (pg 38) Northern goshawk protected activity centers (PACs) are delineated surrounding all known and newly discovered breeding territories detected on National Forest System lands. Northern goshawk PACs are designated based upon the latest documented nest site and location(s) of alternate nests. If the actual nest site is not located, the PAC is designated based on the location of territorial adult birds or recently fledged juvenile goshawks during the fledgling dependency period.

PACs are delineated to: (1) include known and suspected nest stands and (2) encompass the best available 200 acres of forested habitat in the largest contiguous patches possible, based on aerial photography.

Where suitable nesting habitat occurs in small patches, PACs are defined as multiple blocks in the largest best available patches within 0.5 miles of one another. Best available forested stands for PACs have the following characteristics: (1) trees in the dominant and co-dominant crown classes average 24 inches dbh or greater; (2) in westside conifer and eastside mixed conifer forest types, stands have at least 70 percent tree canopy cover; and (3) in eastside pine forest types, stands have at least 60 percent tree canopy cover. Non-forest vegetation (such as brush and meadows) should not be counted as part of the 200 acres. As additional nest location and habitat data become available, PAC boundaries are reviewed and adjusted as necessary to better include known and suspected nest stands and to encompass the best available 200 acres of forested habitat.

When activities are planned adjacent to non-national forest lands, available databases are checked for the presence of nearby northern goshawk activity centers on non-national forest

11 lands. A 200- acre circular area, centered on the activity center, is delineated. Any part of the circular 200-acre area that lies on national forest lands is designated and managed as a northern goshawk PAC.

PACs are maintained regardless of northern goshawk occupancy status. PACs may be removed from the network after a stand-replacing event if the habitat has been rendered unsuitable as a northern goshawk PAC and there are no opportunities for re-mapping the PAC in proximity to the affected PAC.

Desired Conditions (pg 38) Stands in each PAC have: (1) at least two tree canopy layers; (2) dominant and co-dominant trees with average diameters of at least 24 inches dbh; (3) at least 60 to70 percent canopy cover; (4) some very large snags (greater than 45 inches dbh); and (5) snag and down woody material levels that are higher than average.

Northern Goshawk Surveys (pg 54 and pp. 59-61) Conduct surveys in compliance with the Pacific Southwest Region’s survey protocols during the planning process when vegetation treatments are likely to reduce habitat quality are proposed in suitable northern goshawk nesting habitat that is not within an existing California spotted owl or northern goshawk PAC. Suitable northern goshawk nesting habitat is defined based on the survey protocol. (pg 54)

Within the assessment area or watershed, locate fuels treatments to minimize impacts to PACs. PACs may be re-mapped during project planning to avoid intersections with treatment areas, provided that the re-mapped PACs contain habitat of equal quality and include known nest sites and important roost sites. Document PAC adjustments in biological evaluations. (pp 59-61)

When treatment areas must intersect PACs and choices can be made about which PACs to enter, use the following criteria to preferentially avoid PACs that have the highest likely contribution to owl productivity.  lowest contribution to productivity: PACs presently unoccupied and historically occupied by territorial singles only.  PACs presently unoccupied and historically occupied by pairs,  PACs presently occupied by territorial single  PACs presently occupied by pairs,  highest contribution to productivity: PACs currently or historically reproductive.

Historical occupancy is considered occupancy since 1990. Current occupancy is based on surveys consistent with survey protocol (March 1992) in the last 2-3 years prior to project planning. These dates were chosen to encompass the majority of survey efforts and to include breeding pulses in the early 1990s when many sites were found to be productive. When designing treatment unit intersections with PACs, limit treatment acres to those necessary to achieve strategic placement objectives and avoid treatments adjacent to nest stands whenever possible.

12 If nesting or foraging habitat in PACs is mechanically treated, mitigate by adding acreage to the PAC equivalent to the treated acres using adjacent acres of comparable quality wherever possible.

1. Mechanical treatments may be conducted to meet fuels objectives in protected activity centers (PACs) located in WUI defense zones. In PACs located in WUI threat zones, mechanical treatments are allowed where prescribed fire is not feasible and where avoiding PACs would significantly compromise the overall effectiveness of the landscape fire and fuels strategy. Mechanical treatments should be designed to maintain habitat structure and function of the PAC. 2. While mechanical treatments may be conducted in protected activity centers (PACs) located in WUI defense zones and, in some cases, threat zones, they are prohibited within a 500-foot radius buffer around a spotted owl activity center within the designated PAC. Prescribed burning is allowed within the 500-foot radius buffer. Hand treatments, including handline construction, tree pruning, and cutting of small trees (less than 6 inches dbh), may be conducted prior to burning as needed to protect important elements of owl habitat. Treatments in the remainder of the PAC use the forest-wide standards and guidelines for mechanical thinning. 3. In PACs located outside the WUI, limit stand-altering activities to reducing surface and ladder fuels through prescribed fire treatments. In forested stands with overstory trees 11 inches dbh and greater, design prescribed fire treatments to have an average flame length of 4 feet or less. Hand treatments, including handline construction, tree pruning, and cutting of small trees (less than 6 inches dbh), may be conducted prior to burning as needed to protect important elements of owl habitat.

For northern goshawk PACs: Maintain a limited operating period (LOP), prohibiting vegetation treatments within approximately ¼ mile of the nest site during the breeding season (February 15 through September 15) unless surveys confirm that northern goshawks are not nesting. If the nest stand within a protected activity center (PAC) is unknown, either apply the LOP to a ¼- mile area surrounding the PAC, or survey to determine the nest stand location.

The LOP may be waived for vegetation treatments of limited scope and duration, when a biological evaluation determines that such projects are unlikely to result in breeding disturbance considering their intensity, duration, timing and specific location. Where a biological evaluation concludes that a nest site would be shielded from planned activities by topographic features that would minimize disturbance, the LOP buffer distance may be modified. (USDA Forest Service 2004 pg 60).

Breeding season limited operating period restrictions may be waived, where necessary, to allow for use of early season prescribed fire in up to 5 percent of northern goshawk PACs per year on a forest. (USDA Forest Service 2004 pg 61)

For northern goshawk PACs: Conduct mechanical treatments in no more than 5 percent per year and 10 percent per decade of the acres in northern goshawk PACs in the 11 Sierra Nevada national forests. (USDA Forest Service 2004 pg 61).

13 Mitigate impacts where there is documented evidence of disturbance to the nest site from existing recreation, off highway vehicle route, trail, and road uses (including road maintenance). Evaluate proposals for new roads, trails, off highway vehicle routes, and recreational and other developments for their potential to disturb nest sites. (USDA Forest Service 2004 pg 61).

Pallid Bat Although not highlighted specifically in the SNFPA Record of Decision, pallid bat direction consists of conservation measures listed in Volume 3 of the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USFS 2001, page 55 of chapter 3, part 4.4). These measures are paraphrased as follows: Provide for hardwood stands into the future (especially older stands, to produce healthy hardwood crowns or regeneration as well as adequate flight space), adopt mine and cave plans, and develop a mosaic of stands in chaparral.

Applicable Forest Plan direction (as amended by USFS 2004) for northern goshawk and snag habitat includes the following:

Snags and Down Woody Material West side mixed conifer and ponderosa pine types – [leave] four of the largest snags per acre. Emphasize retention of wood in the largest size classes and in decay classes 1, 2, and 3. Consider the effects of follow-up fire in achieving desired down woody material retention levels (USDA Forest Service 2004 page 51).

III. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTIONS For the complete Proposed Action and Design Features, refer to the Lassen 15 Restoration Project Environmental Assessment.

IV. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT California Wildlife Habitat Relationship (CWHR) vegetation data (a part of the 2004 Modoc National Forest electronic vegetation dataset), as validated by Common Stand Exam (CSE) plots, aerial photography, and stand data records, was used to assess the current condition within the Lassen 15 Project Area.

The present CWHR categories have changed since the Modoc NF LRMP. Table 2 shows the two systems.

Post-project changes in habitat were modeled using the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) to simulate growth of stands over time as well as the effects of the various prescribed treatments outlined in the proposed action.

14 Table 2. CWHR size and density classes CWHR Size – Modoc Current CWHR Size CWHR Density- Modoc Current CWHR LRMP (page 4-32) LRMP Density 1 – Plantation 1 – Seedling tree (x<1 a – 0% to 39% S – 10% to 24% inch dbh) 2 – Shrub, sapling, pole 2 – Sapling tree (1-6 b – 40% to 70% P – 25% to 39% (1-11 inch dbh) inch dbh) 3 – Small tree (11 to 24 3 – Pole tree (6-11 inch c – 71% to 100% M – 40% to 59% inch dbh) dbh) 4 – Medium to large tree 4 – Small tree (11 to 24 D – 60% to 100% (x> 24 inch dbh) inch dbh) 5 – Medium/Large tree (x> 24 inch dbh) 6 – Multi-layered tree (sized 5 over distinct layer of sized 4 or 3)

The following information comes directly from the Silvicultural Report prepared by Roy Cuzick (Cuzick 2016). “Because all models are abstractions and approximations of reality, there are limitations to the predictions resulting from models. Given the uncertainty of any modeling exercise, the results are best used to compare the relative effects of the alternatives, rather than as an indicator of absolute effects. Professional judgment and experience is also applied.” The vegetation data for the units, the project area, and a three-mile wide buffer from the project area are presented in Table 3. The acreage in Table 3 may be inconsistent with total project area found in other reports, due to the way GIS software processed the analysis.

Table 3. Acres of pre- and post-project vegetation by CWHR type. CWHR Type, Size, Project Area (ac) Project Area (ac) 3 Mile Buffer Density Pre-Project Post-Project around Units (ac) Juniper – all sizes/densities 544 544 6132 Alpine Dwarf Shrub 1 1 16 Aspen 61 61 451 Barren 9 9 186 Bitterbrush 216 216 884 Deciduous Orchard 0 0 9 East-side Pine 2 all densities 21 32 56 3P & 3S 607 628 1,605 3D & 3M 821 673 894 4P & 4S 1,892 6,861 4,394 4D & 4M 8,451 3,581 15,713 5P 0 17 11 5D & 5M 23 23 210 Jeffrey Pine 4P & 4S 11 11 20 5P 2 2 3 Lacustrine (Lake) 0 0

15 CWHR Type, Size, Project Area (ac) Project Area (ac) 3 Mile Buffer Density Pre-Project Post-Project around Units (ac) Lodge pole Pine 3 all densities 14 14 65 4P 14 14 72 4D & 4M 223 223 1106 5D 0 0 241 Low sage 806 806 4,087 Montane Chaparral 426 426 1,080 Montane Hardwood/Conifer 9 9 36 Montane Riparian 177 177 195 Pasture 0 0 1,180 Perennial Grassland 619 619 4,155 Ponderosa Pine 2 all densities 19 19 29 3P& 3S 44 44 93 3D & 3M 78 78 88 4P & 4S 57 57 176 4D & 4M 756 756 3,439 5D & 5M 44 44 417 Subalpine Conifer 2 all densities 0 0 2 3P & 3S 0 0 19 3M 0 0 5 4P & 4S 1 1 53 4D & 4M 8 8 600 Sagebrush 4,931 4,931 17,758 Sierran Mixed Conifer 2 all densities 2 2 25 3P & 3S 66 66 223 3D & 3M 606 527 695 4P & 4S 344 543 712 4D & 4M 1,792 1,542 6,959 5P 1 131 5 5D & 5M 173 173 1,387 Urban 0 0 47 White Fir 2 all densities 8 8 35 3P & 3S 36 36 238 3D & 3M 83 83 211 4P & 4S 95 95 419 4D & 4M 1,008 1,008 5,445 5D & 5M 146 146 1,050 Wet Meadow 53 53 267 Total 25,298 25,298 83,310 Modeling and rounding may cause minor differences in vegetation totals among specialist reports.

16 The Modoc NF has specific direction for certain localities, which are grouped in to Management Areas. The majority of the Lassen 15 project lies within Management Area 32 – Fandango. Requirements for Wildlife and Fish are found on page 4-154 of the Modoc NF LRMP. Only the requirements for Wildlife germane to TES species will be discussed below; see the wildlife report for coverage of the other standards and guidelines.

Old Growth

On page 4-32 of the Modoc NF LRMP, a table denoting seral stages defines old growth in terms of tree size and age. Old growth is defined as trees 190 -270 years or greater with a mature stand of large trees greater than 24 inches DBH. The canopy cover can ranges from open to closed. Using Table 3 (see above), the current CWHR classes would vary by tree species and canopy covers, but include sizes 5 and 6. The new terminology from the Management Indicator Species report would equate these habitat types to Late Seral Open and Closed Canopy Coniferous Forest (see marten section below).

Direction specific to the LRMP Management Area for the Lassen 15 project states, “Provide for 1,065 acres of old growth in the mixed conifer type and 753 acres in the eastside pine type (USDA Forest Service 2004 page 4-154).” Currently, there are 1,717 acres of mixed conifer and 281 acres of eastside pine utilizing the 2012 CWHR data and the size classes from the Modoc LMRP in stands with greater than 40% canopy cover. Table 4 has the total amount of stands with trees greater than 24 inch dbh for all habitat types.

Per Table 4, the Lassen 15 project would cause no change in the amount of eastside pine and mixed conifer stands with trees 24 inch dbh and greater and with greater than 40% canopy cover. There would a net increase in the open canopied old growth stands, due to the removal of small diameter understory trees resulting in an increase in quadratic mean diameter (Table 5); this increase occurs in both the eastside pine and mixed conifer habitat types (R. Cuzick, pers. comm.).

Table 4. Acres of old growth (stands with trees over 24 inch dbh) in Management Area 32. Habitat type LRMP Current Level based 2012 WHR recommended level data in acres in acres (by density) (page 4-154) in acres Eastside Pine (EPN) 735 305 (7 in S, 13 in M, and 284 in D) Mixed Conifer (SMC) 1,065 1,740 (7 in S, 6 in M, and 1726 in D) Jeffrey Pine N/A 0.7 (P only) Ponderosa Pine N/A 453 (5 in M and 448 in D) White Fir N/A 1,242 (26 in M and 1,215 in D) Lodge Pole Pine N/A 52 (D only) Total 1,800 3,792.7

17 Table 5. Pre and Post-Project Old Growth in Management Area 32; canopy covers are approximations, since the densities don’t match. WHR per LRMP Current WHR Pre- Project Post-Project Acres Acres 4a – Eastside Pine EPN 5 S and P 0 17 4b – Eastside Pine EPN 5 M and D 23 23

4a – Mixed Conifer SMC 5 S and P 1 131 4b – Mixed Conifer SMC 5 M and D 173 173

Snags The snag management goal for the Fandango Management Area (LRMP pg 4-154) states “Use a variety of active snag management techniques to achieve 1.5 snags per acre in each timber compartment.” Snags transects have been run for various projects both in the Lassen 15 Project area and throughout the Devil’s Garden and Warner Mountain Ranger Districts. Although many of these efforts were tied to specific projects, Pacific Southwest Region (PSW) Research Station conducted a research study that included the Modoc and Lassen NFs as well as Lassen National Park. These data are found in Tables 6 and 7.

Table 6. Snag and log transects data for the Warner Mountain District. Average Location Date Average logs/acre snags/acre Northern Portion of District Lassen Creek 1985 0.41α No Data Franklin Creek 1993 20.7* No Data Bolan Creek 1995 43.9** 22.6 Cedar Pass 2004 9.6*** No Data Cave Lake/Bolan Creek 2007 23.1** No Data Lassen 15 Project Area 2016 7 (on the site with No data trees 11 to 24 inch dbh); 4.5 (on site with trees x>24 inch trees). Southern Portion of District Blue Lake 1994 56** 11 Mahogany Ridge 1994 38** 14 Parsnip Springs 1994 18** 9 West Warner 1994 to 1995 11.98*** 12.9 West Warner 2006 17.8 to 18.4** No Data α Snags 15 inch dbh and greater; * Snags greater than 10 inch dbh; **Snags greater than 7.9 inch dbh; *** Snags greater than 14 inch dbh.

18 Table 7. Data from PSW snag study; data was collected from FY 1989 to FY2000. Range in Transect Name average snags Habitat Type Average Snag Age per acre Baseball 1.84 to 6.4 Eastside Pine 26 + years Four Mile 10.3 to 13.2 Eastside Pine 26 + years Pease Flat 5.52 to 10.5 Eastside Pine 22 + years Soup Creek 1.76 to 6.72 Mixed Conifer 26 + years

The data indicate that snags levels vary over time. Based on observations, the current levels are above the amounts required by the Modoc NF LRMP, as amended.

Crews revisited the PSW transects to determine snag longevity on four transects situated on the Modoc NF. Although several of the snags were still standing after 25 years, there was no correlation between snag size and longevity.

Based on estimated mortality rates associated with the current high stocking levels throughout the majority of the project area as well as ocular observations, it is anticipated that the current level of existing large diameter snags is well above the three snags per acre prescribed in the SNFPA ROD 2004 (Figure 1; Graph 8 in Lassen 15 Silviculture Report). It is anticipated that future snag levels will meet or exceed Forest Plan Standards.

Mortality Rates for No Treatment 70 60 50

Cubic Feet per Acre Stocking Level Light Stocking Level Moderate Stocking Level High Stocking Level Very High

Figure 1. Estimated future mortality rates for general stocking levels within Lassen 15 area.

19 V. EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT The following information for Pacific marten, bald eagle, fringed myotis, great grey owl, northern goshawk, and pallid bat provide an account of habitat characteristics and known occurrences of each species. In addition, the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects are also documented.

Pacific marten Existing condition Species Account The major portion of the Pacific marten distribution in North America is in the boreal and tiaga habitats of Alaska and Canada; in the western United States, their range is limited to the mountain ranges in Washington and Oregon south into California and in the Rocky Mountains (Buskirk and Ruggiero in Ruggiero et al 1994). Within California, marten are found in the coastal range, the southern Cascades, and Sierra Nevada Mountains. On the Modoc National Forest, the only known occupied habitat occurs in the Medicine Lake Highlands.

Track plate and camera surveys for forest carnivores (including marten) began in the early 1990’s on the WMRD. Multiple areas on the WMRD were surveyed utilizing the “A survey protocol for forest carnivores in proposed management activity areas” (USDA Forest Service 1992). Areas of survey included the best quality habitat on the WMRD: Mount Vida/Yellow Mountain/North Star Basin; Headwaters of Lassen and Goose Creeks/Benton Meadows; Shields Creek/North Star Basin; East Creek/Patterson Meadow; Payne Peak south to Tom Lee Meadows; Cottonwood Creek south to Barnes Creek; as well as Mill Creek south to Tamarack Flat. These surveys were conducted from 1992 to 1995. No marten were detected during the 100’s of nights of surveys.

Within the Lassen 15 project area, surveys for forest carnivores using track plates were run during March to early April of 2015 in and adjacent to with CWHR size class 5 and M&D densities. The protocol found in the Zielinski and Kucera (1995) technical report PSW-GTR-157 was used to run track plate stations. Since no marten were detected during this survey period, a second survey was conducted. It concluded on 11 March 2016. Table 8 lists the species detected during the forest carnivore surveys.

Table 8. Results of the track plate survey for the Lassen 15 Project. Station Target Species Other Species Detected 1 Not detected Mice and Douglas Squirrel 2 Not detected Mice, Douglas Squirrel, and Striped Skunk 3 Not detected Mice, Douglas Squirrel, and Striped Skunk 4 Not detected Mice and Douglas Squirrel 5 Not detected Mice and Douglas Squirrel 6 Not detected Mice and Douglas Squirrel 7 Not detected Mice and Douglas Squirrel 8 Not detected Mountain Lion, Mice, and Douglas Squirrel

20 Camera stations were run from March until May 2015. Black bear was the only carnivore detected at the camera stations. This detection occurred near Cottonwood Flat. Additional camera stations were run during summer 2017 throughout the Warner Mountain Ranger District. No marten were detected during those surveys.

Current Condition of the Habitat Factor(s) in the Project Area The 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Record of Decision, page 39 (USFS 2004) states:

Marten den sites are 100-acre buffers consisting of the highest quality habitat in a compact arrangement surrounding the den site. CWHR types 6, 5D, 5M, 4D and 4M in descending order of priority, based on availability, provide highest quality habitat for the marten.

Areas surrounding marten den sites have (1) at least two conifers per acre greater than 24 inches dbh with suitable denning cavities, (2) canopy closures exceeding 60 percent, (3) more than 10 tons per acre of coarse woody debris in decay classes 1 and 2, and (4) an average of 6 snags per acre on the westside and 3 per acre on the eastside.

The Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment supersedes the Modoc LRMP direction for marten. No marten den site buffers have been established on the WMRD, since there are no known marten den sites. The only Modoc NF marten activity center (with known den sites) is located in the Medicine Lake Highlands. No Limited Operating Periods have been recommended in the Lassen 15 project area, due to the lack of marten sightings and other evidence of presence.

The Buck Mountain marten territory is located at the southern edge of the Lassen 15 project area. Although there have been no marten detected in the area, it was located in this area in order to meet the spacing guidelines found on page 4-27 of the Modoc LRMP.

The territory encompasses 3,440 total acres. The breakdown of vegetation types can be found in Appendix B of this report. Although it includes the best available habitat within the area, the territory does not contain the Modoc LRMP Standard and Guideline amount of 4 b/c (which equates to the current CWHR Size 5, Densities D and M). There is 35 percent late seral habitat, but the standard calls for 60 percent of the territory to be in this seral stage. There is a surplus of 3 b/c (which is the current CWHR Size 4 Densities D and M); currently there is 47 percent of the territory in this seral stage, but the requirement calls for 20 percent. It should be noted that other late seral adapted species use stands that have 20 inch dbh trees found in some of the CWHR Size 4 stands.

Old Forest Fragmentation Analysis: An analysis of potential impacts of fragmentation was conducted for marten, since fisher are outside of the range of the Modoc NF. This analysis is required by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USDA Forest Service 2004 page 53). The discussion continues in the Direct/Indirect Effects section below, especially under the Habitat Connectivity for Old Forest Associated Species heading.

Analysis of changes in canopy closure resulting from the proposed treatments was based on stand inventory data for the project area. Stand inventory data identified 363 acres of late seral closed canopy coniferous forest (LSCCCF) habitat on the Lassen 15 Project Area. LSCCCF is

21 defined as ponderosa pine (PPN), Sierran mixed conifer (SMC), white fir (WFR), red fir (RFR), tree size 5 (canopy closures M and D), and tree size 6 (Sierra Nevada Project-level MIS Report Template Outline, 2011). In addition, 23 acres of Eastside Pine (EPN) tree size 5 (canopy closures M and D) was identified, although this habitat was not identified as a CWHR type that defined LSCCCF.

All occurrences of LSCCCF were located on National Forest System (NFS) lands, none on private inholdings. All were classified as size class 5 trees; no class 6 tree habitat was mapped. The LSCCCF was mapped in over 50 geographically-separated patches on the project area; the largest was a 36.8 acre patch of SMC.

The four areas with the largest concentrations of LSCCCF were separated by about 0.2 miles, 1.3 miles, 2.4 miles and 2.7 miles. Thus, the LSCCCF was widely dispersed in small patches on the project area.

Currently, there appears to be insufficient LSCCCF habitat present on the project area to support a pine marten home range. Stand data for the project area identified 363 acres of LSCCCF habitat in scattered patches on the study area. Marten home range sizes in Central and Northern California average 960 acres for males and 801 acres for females (SNFPA FEIS Vol. 3 Chap.3 part 4.4 page 21).

Also, “[m]artens have not been found in landscapes with greater than 25 percent of the area in openings, even where suitable habitat connectivity exists (Chapin et al.1998, Hargis et al.1999, Potvin et al. 2000)” (SNFPA FEIS Vol. 3 Chap.3 part 4.4 page 20). Stand data indicated that 27.9 percent of the project area consisted of open habitats (including alpine dwarf shrub, barren, bitterbrush, low sagebrush, montane chaparral, perennial grassland, sagebrush, and wet meadow).

Juniper was mapped on more than 2 percent of the project area, but was not included as an open habitat even though over 70 percent of the juniper acres were mapped as canopy class S with only 10 to 24 percent canopy cover. This was done because it was unclear (although probable) that juniper would have been categorized as an open habitat by the authors cited.

Thus, the project area currently provides inadequate habitat for Pacific marten, due to insufficient LSCCCF acres and an excess of open areas.

The historic distribution of Pacific martens excludes the Warner Mountains and virtually all of Modoc County (Schempf and White 1977, Zeiner et al. 1990, Kucera et al. 1995, Zielinski et al. 2001). Only an area near the western edge of Modoc County (about 65 miles from the project area) is shown as historic or current habitat by these authors.

The project area is outside the range of Pacific marten and no marten den sites are present on the project area, but the analysis of CWHR types was extended to include 4D and 4M (see Table 9) to be conservative. Total acres within Table 9 represent conifer types and size classes associated with marten habitat and may differ from total conifer acreage within the project area.

22 No changes in the number of acres of LSCCCF would result from treatments during this project. Also, no other tree size class 5 or 6, canopy closure M or D habitat acres would be changed by the proposed treatments. However, changes in stands with less dense canopies or smaller size class trees would take place.

The increases in the acres of size class 5 tree habitat would result from removing some smaller trees with mechanical thinning, and removing additional smaller trees with prescribed fire. The remaining larger trees would then constitute a greater percentage of trees in the stands, thus dominating the stands and shifting some current size class 4 stands into size class 5 stands.

Changes in acres of PPN, WFR, and SMC, habitats favored by Pacific marten would be relatively modest for tree sizes classes 4, 3 and 2. The immediate trend would be toward more acres dominated by larger trees, with more open canopies.

The biggest changes will take place in EPN habitats (not favored by Pacific marten) where the primary trend would be toward more open canopies, with a lesser trend toward increasing tree sizes.

Table 9. Based on stand inventory data, the following changes in tree size classes and canopy classes will occur as a result of the treatments: Pre-Treatment Post-Treatment CWHR Habitat Acres Acres Tree size 5, canopy closure class P for: PPN, WFR, SMC - 1 131 EPN - 0 17

Tree size 4, canopy closure classes D & M for: PPN, WFR, SMC - 3,556 3,306 EPN - 8,451 3,581

Tree size 4, canopy closure class P & S for: PPN, WFR, SMC - 496 695 EPN - 1,892 6,861

Tree sizes 2 & 3, all canopy closures for: PPN, WFR, SMC - 942 863 EPN - 1,449 1,333

Thinning of trees on the project area would initially reduce canopy cover, but potentially might also encourage spreading of canopies for the remaining trees. Thus, these stands likely would, over time, develop into habitats composed of larger trees with increased canopy closure. This would be beneficial in reducing fragmentation of old forest habitats.

23 Acres with changes in large down logs per acre or large snags per acre. Down logs and snags would be retained during mechanical treatment, with the exception of snags which pose a safety hazard during thinning operations. Prescribed burning may consume some down logs and snags, but allowable scorching of up to 15 percent of standing live trees (M. Deperro, pers. comm.) would result in additional new snags and logs. These new recruits are expected to be sufficient to replace any losses of down logs and snags to prescribed burning and hazard tree removal.

Environmental Effects:

Direct and Indirect Effects

Key Habitat Factor(s) for the Analysis: Changes in canopy cover and acres of LSCCCF.

No Action The no action alternative would result in no direct effects to the LSCCCF habitat on the project area. The indirect effects would include retention and potential increase in current fuel loads and stand densities, which would increase the susceptibility of the habitat to stand-replacing wildfires, insect infestations and forest diseases.

Proposed Action According to various authors, the historic distribution of American (now Pacific) martens excludes the Warner Mountains and virtually all of Modoc County (Schempf and White 1977, Zeiner et al. 1990, Kucera et al. 1995). To date, only unconfirmed sightings have been reported on the Warner Mountain Ranger District (WMRD). In addition, no marten were detected during protocol surveys conducted for the Lassen 15 project.

National Forest system lands on the project area consist of 27.9 percent open habitats (including alpine dwarf shrub, barren, bitterbrush, low sagebrush, montane chaparral, perennial grassland, sagebrush, and wet meadow. “[M]artens have not been found in landscapes with greater than 25 percent of the area in openings, even where suitable habitat connectivity exists (Chapin et al.1998, Hargis et al.1999, Potvin et al. 2000)” (SNFPA FEIS Vol. 3 Chap.3 part 4.4 page 20). Whether the project area would ever provide adequate habitat for martens is questionable, due to the sizable proportion of natural open areas.

Currently, there appears to be insufficient LSCCCF habitat present on the project area to support marten home range. Stand inventory data identified 363 acres of LSCCCF on the project area. Marten home range sizes in Central and Northern California average 960 acres for males and 801 acres for females (SNFPA FEIS Vol. 3 Chap.3 part 4.4 page 21).

Acres of preferred Pacific marten habitat (LSCCCF) would remain unchanged by the treatments described under the proposed action. However, the treatments would affect stands characterized by more open canopies, smaller trees and areas dominated by EPN. In these stands the proposed action would have the short-term effect of increasing tree size, but reducing canopy closure.

24 Over time, the canopies of these larger trees could expand and increase canopy closure. As a result the future trajectory of the stands would be toward larger size class stands, thus increasing the potential for more LSCCCF.

Also the stands would be at less risk from stand-replacing wildfires, insects and diseases. The proposed action would help protect the forest from stand-replacing fires by reducing ladder fuels. Removing smaller trees would also help protect the larger trees from insect damage and diseases by reducing competition for water and nutrients.

In summary, removal of trees by thinning and burning on approximately 8,000 acres of the 25,276 acres on the project area would not alter the distribution of potential Pacific marten habitat in the project area. Marten have not been photographed during forest carnivore surveys conducted in east side pine habitats on the nearby Eagle Lake Ranger District of the Lassen National Forest (T. Rickman, pers. comm.); east side pine habitats on the Eagle Lake Ranger District are similar to those in the lower elevation eastside pine habitats in the Lassen 15 project area, so their findings are germane.

Treatment would result in 250 acres of Sierran Mixed Conifer (SMC) habitat being converted from SMC 4 M and D habitat to SMC 4 P and S. This conversion is only 1.3 percent of the 18,697 acres of the cumulative effects analysis area (i.e., project area with the 3-mile buffer).

Weir replacement, roadwork, and planting would have no effect on denning or foraging habitat in the near term.

Habitat Connectivity for Old Forest Associated Species Management Standards and Guidelines #27 from the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Record of Decision states: Minimize old forest habitat fragmentation. Assess potential impacts of fragmentation on old forest associated species (particularly fisher and marten) in biological evaluations (pg 53).

The management activities proposed as part of the Lassen 15 project would initially reduce canopy cover in some forest habitat types by removing smaller trees, but thinning and burning would also increase the acreage dominated by larger trees. Large tree canopies may expand, resulting in old forests with increased canopy cover provided by large trees. Over the long term, the project likely would result in more old growth forests dominated by large trees and higher canopies. This would probably minimize old forest habitat fragmentation (Table 10).

Table 10. Pacific marten habitat (Late Seral Closed Canopy Coniferous Forest) pre and post treatment. Pre-treatment Habitat (ac) Post-treatment Habitat (ac) Lassen 15 Project Area 383 383

Since there would be no effect to the amount of potential habitat, there would be no effect to fragmentation in the Lassen 15 Project Area.

25 Cumulative Effects The spatial boundary for the cumulative effects for marten is 3 miles from the project area. The temporal boundary is 1850 to 2040. For the purpose of this cumulative effects analysis, the existing condition derived from the 2004 EVEG data set reflects the past vegetation management activities.

No Action Historic logging and stand-replacing wildfires have probably had the biggest impact on potential Pacific marten habitat by reducing the amount of LSCCCF habitat. Recent projects have involved primarily thinning and prescribed burning, both of which would encourage establishment of larger trees and greater canopy closure of late seral habitats.

Planned and foreseeable future impacts to the project area include permitted cattle grazing, suppression of wildfires, obsidian mining, recreation and fuelwood cutting would not affect potential denning or foraging habitat. Marten natal dens are typically found in cavities in large trees, snags, stumps, logs, burrows, caves, rocks, or crevices in rocky areas in structurally complex, late successional forests (Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994).

Therefore, implementation of the no action alternative would not contribute to cumulative effects.

Proposed Action Planned and foreseeable future impacts to the project area include permitted cattle grazing, suppression of wildfires, obsidian mining, the Lassen 15 Restoration project and fuelwood cutting.

Early management activities on the project area include livestock grazing beginning in the late 1800s with free ranging cattle and wandering bands of sheep. Logging was practiced in the early 20th century. More recent activities are displayed in Table 11.

Table 11. Forest Management activities for the Lassen 15 Restoration Project Area from 2004 through 2011. Year Activities Acres 2004 Prescribed Burning 434 2005 Prescribed Burning 486 2006 Prescribed Burning 139 2007 Thinning/Tree Planting 214 Year Activities Acres 2008 Thinning 12 2010 Tree Planting 25 2011 Thinning 677 2004-2011 All Forest Mgmt. Act. 1,987 OTHER ACTIVITIES Ongoing (all years) Cattle Grazing 25,224 Ongoing (all years) Obsidian Mining; Mine Protection & Safety 31

26 Present and reasonably-foreseeable future actions that may affect this habitat include this proposed project, forest thinning, prescribed burning, noxious weed treatments, firewood cutting, obsidian mining, and suppression of wildfires.

Seasonal livestock grazing permitted under Forest Standards does not impact tree canopy cover, but may result in minor disturbances to the shrub canopy layer and seedlings. Managed grazing by livestock is not expected to adversely affect LSCCCF habitat.

The exclusion of natural fire from forested habitats leads to unnatural fuel loading and greater risk of stand-replacing wildfires, insect infestations and forest diseases over the long term. Thinning and prescribed burning have been proposed to make the project area more suited to the beneficial effects of natural fire.

The existing condition derived from the 2004 EVEG data set reflects the past vegetation management activities that have resulted in reduced acres of LSCCCF. Due to timber harvest and repeated large stand replacing wildfires much of the project area consists of plantations (some 60-85 year old).

Noxious weed treatments, firewood cutting and obsidian mining are likely to have minimal impact on the project area. Distance from population centers is expected to limit wood cutting. Noxious weed treatments (herbicide and manual) are generally targeted against single plant or small infestations. Suppression of noxious weeds is likely to favor native plants of greater value to Pacific martens than the weeds. Obsidian is abundant in the project area and attracts both commercial and recreational miners.

There is one obsidian mine, the Lassen Creek Rainbow Mine (Rainbow), within the Lassen 15 Project area. Authorized mining activity occurs from May 1st to November 1st annually. Mining activity is a combination of commercial and personal use within the specifically delineated mining area. Excavation and removal of obsidian is done only with the use of non-mechanized hand tools. Historically, the Rainbow has 2 to 3 commercial operators that would account for up to 3 vehicles and perhaps 6 individuals for days at a time and periodically throughout the authorized period. Because Rainbow is on a major travel way to Lassen Creek Campground, recreational/personal use obsidian collection can account for several small family groups at the mine during any summer week.

Three other obsidian mines are located within 3 miles of the Lassen 15 Restoration Project analysis area. They are the: Middle Fork Davis Creek Mine, Obsidian Needles Mine and the Pink Lady Mine. All the obsidian mines operate under the Warner Mountain Obsidian Management [Plan], which authorizes obsidian mining, as well as, resource and safety protection measures that can be used at the mine sites. Obsidian mining has little or no impact on existing tree canopies, but introduces human presence and disturbance to the project area. However, the obsidian mines are small in size accounting for only 30.9 acres (less than 1/10th of 1 percent) of the cumulative effects analysis area (i.e., project area with the 3-mile buffer).

Proposed and foreseeable future actions would generally provide geographically-limited adverse disturbance and long-term favorable impacts to potential habitat of Pacific martens. Thinning

27 and prescribed burning activities over the next 10 years may initially reduce the value of potential habitat on the project area for martens. Over the long term, the project activities likely would lead to an improvement in potential habitat for Pacific martens.

To summarize, both the no action and proposed action alternatives for the Lassen 15 Project area would have discountable contributions to cumulative effects for Pacific marten.

Bald Eagle Existing Condition Species Account The bald eagle, once a federally listed species, is currently considered a Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive Species. It breeds from central Alaska and Canada south to New Mexico, Arizona, Texas Gulf Coast, and Florida (including the Keys); bald eagles generally winter throughout the breeding range except in the far north (NatureServe 2006). The bald eagle both breeds and winters in California. The bald eagle population continues to exhibit an upward trend on the Modoc National Forest.

Bald eagles are considered “traditional nesters” (they return to the same site each year to nest); they construct additional nests when the original nest tree has been destroyed or its condition has deteriorated, when there is trauma to the birds at the nest, and/or when there has been a major change in local habitat (Lehman 1979).

There is one known territory within the Lassen 15 project area. The first nest found in the Willow Creek (WMRD) bald eagle territory was located near the heli-port. The nest was active in 2003, but it failed early on. Since that time, the territory has had fairly consistent occupancy, but several different nest locations (Table 12).

Table 12. Willow Creek bald eagle territory nesting history Year Outcome 2003 New nest – failed 2004 Failed – 1 dead chick found under the nest 2005 1 young 2006 2 young – new nest location 2007 Not active 2008 Failed 2009 2 young 2010 3 young 2011 Failed 2012 1 young – new nest location 2013 Failed 2014 2 young 2015 Inactive (small amount of whitewash under nest inconclusive)

28

Noise and potential harassment of eagles from management activities is a concern. The most intensive disturbance would come from the actual harvesting of trees. In a model that assess the effects of disturbance on breeding bald eagles, researchers found eagles responded differently to stimuli depending on the type and duration of disturbance (Grubb and King 1991). Their findings indicated that pedestrian activities near active nests provided the greatest amount of disturbance and aircraft provided the least. They also found the distance to the disturbance was the most important aspect of human disturbance. Many studies on eagle and human disturbance have recommended buffers be placed around eagles. The width of these buffers varies with time of the year and the type of disturbance. Grubb and King (1991) recommended that a minimum buffer of 600 meters (0.37 mi) be instituted around breeding bald eagles. Values of 500 meters (0.31 mi) (Fraser et al. 1985) and 450 meters (0.28 mi) (Knight and Knight 1984) for nesting eagles and feeding eagles, respectively, have also been recommended. The limited operating period (LOP) from the Modoc Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) exceeds these recommendations.

Habitat Account Suitable habitat for bald eagles on the Modoc National Forest includes large trees for perching and nesting near lakes or reservoirs, large rivers, and perennial creeks. Polite et al (1990) noted that 87 percent of bald eagle nest sites in California are within one mile of water, and bald eagles require "large bodies of water, or free-flowing streams with abundant fish...” Shimamoto suggests that bald eagles require their food supply to be within one mile of their nest (Shimamoto and Newman 1981). According to Shimamoto and Newman (1981), a suitable feeding site is usually within 12 miles of bald eagle roosts; and winter roosts have not been found greater than 20 miles from nest sites.

The following information was excerpted from the Pacific Bald Eagle Recovery Plan (USDI, 1986) and from Lehman (1979). Nest stands are more likely to be active if they are located a short distance from a persistent water source. Nest stands had 20 percent to less than 40 percent canopy cover. The nest tree is situated upslope from the water body in an exposed, prominent position, which allows for visibility in all directions. Nest tree height ranged from 76-150 feet, and the average diameter was 43 inch dbh. In California, 71 percent of the trees used were pine. Trees needed to be healthy trees with living tops and stout limbs for nest support (Dunning Class 5 and 4); trees should also have a broad angle of visibility.

A desired condition for the stand for nesting habitat would contain at least 1 Dunning’s Class 5 tree per acre and an understory stocking level that is conducive to providing large tree recruitment and presence over time. According to local data, stand stocking should be 60 to 80 square feet of basal area per acre to meet the desired condition.

Foraging habitat on the Warner Mountain Ranger District often includes lakes, reservoirs, and streams as part of the nest stand. Often, agricultural land is adjacent to the nest site. Bald eagles are frequently seen utilizing carrion (dead cows), waterfowl, and fish, however, ground squirrel, egret, and snake remains have also been found under active nests.

The following vegetation types are found within the Willow Creek bald eagle territory. There are multiple suitable nest trees along the creek and several potential trees further upland. According to data on bald eagle nests within California, the average diameter was 43 inch dbh. Using this 29 information, the following CWHR types were considered suitable habitat, where they were adjacent to water: EPN, PPN, SMC, JPN, and WFR; 4 and 5 size classes; all densities. As can be seen in Table 13, 173 acres of potential habitat exist within the territory. The stands could be improved, if large tree growth could be accelerated to the next size class (EPN5).

Table 13. Current vegetation types within the bald eagle territory CWHR Type, Size, Density Bald Eagle Territory Current Condition (ac) Barren 2 Bitterbrush 28 East-side Pine 3P & 3S 5 4P & 4S 131 4D & 4M 41 Low Sage 9

Foraging habitat occurs along Willow and Lassen Creeks, in Fandango Valley, and in the agricultural lands west of the Forest as well as Goose Lake.

Environmental Effects:

Direct and Indirect Effects

Key Habitat Factor(s) for the Analysis: Changes in tree diameter and potential disturbance to nesting eagles.

No Action There would be no change to the amount of nesting habitat within the Lassen 15 project area. There would be no additional potential for disturbance from vegetation management and watershed restoration activities such as thinning, weir construction, and road improvement work.

Action Alternative Thinning could benefit the bald eagle territory that overlaps Unit 308-9. There would only be a slight increase in the number of acres of potential habitat (five acres as the EPN3 stands increase size to EPN4) in the unit. However, none of the nest or pilot trees would be removed, nor would any tree over 30 inch dbh (Table 14).

Table 14. Pre- and post- harvest vegetation types for the project area.

Pre-harvest Habitat (ac) Post-harvest Habitat (ac) Bald Eagle 14,795 14,949

Literature has shown bald eagle nest trees average 43 inch dbh. By removing the competing smaller trees, the dominant and pre-dominant pines would grow larger at an accelerated rate; the

30 average stand diameter in this territory would increase to approximately 25 inch dbh approximately 30 years after the proposed treatment year of 2020 (R. Cuzick, pers. comm.). In addition, branch work would become more open, thereby increasing the areas potential to support bald eagle nests.

Arnett et al. (2001), found that bald eagle territory occupancy and productivity were not negatively impacted and improved following selective harvest logging. The study was conducted in mixed conifer stands approximately 10 miles north of Klamath Falls, Oregon, which is similar habitat to the Lassen 15 Project area. Therefore, the results would be applicable to the Lassen 15 project.

There is the potential for minor disturbance of bald eagles by the implementation of any of the other projects proposed under the Lassen 15 Project. There is no roadwork, nor are any watershed improvement activities proposed within the bald eagle territory. A limited operating period within ½ mile of active nest sites would be implemented as various projects progress. This LOP distance is greater than the bald eagle management guidelines and is consistent with Modoc LRMP standards and guidelines. Therefore, potential disturbance to nesting eagles from the Lassen 15 project would be minimal to non-existent.

To summarize, management activities proposed in the Lassen 15 EA would be consistent with Modoc NF LRMP, as amended. The actions would also be consistent with the Migratory Bird Treaty and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Thinning would have a beneficial effect of the maintenance and recruitment of nest trees; other activities would have little to no effect.

Therefore, the Lassen 15 Project may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability for the bald eagle.

Cumulative Effects For the purpose of this cumulative effects analysis, the existing condition derived from the 2004 EVEG data set reflects the past vegetation management activities; the veracity of this assumption was verified by Roy Cuzick, previous Silviculturist, based on field reconnaissance. The electronic CWHR and stand data was clipped to a three-mile distance around the project area to assess the potential cumulative effects of current and foreseeable projects. The three-mile distance would encompass the range in distances between nesting territories, which were one to four kilometers (Buehler 2000). The cumulative effects time frame for this analysis would be ten years after the longest tenured project (Fiscal Year 2040), which would include current and reasonably foreseeable projects.

No Action There would be no cumulative effects associated with the no action alternative on National Forest System or private lands.

Proposed Action A. Forest Service (past, present and future actions) Timber/Silviculture: Most of the past silvicultural activities in the Lassen 15 Project Area are

31 related to timber sales and timber stand improvement projects. Information in Table 15 was taken from the FACTS database. The Briles Project should increase the potential for large nest trees on the landscape. The prescriptions were developed in coordination with the USFWS to enhance the nesting habitat.

Table 15. Past vegetation management activities within three miles of the Lassen 15 area Total Date Activity Identifier Prescription Acres On going Facilities Maintenance Thinning green and hazard trees 14.3 around Buck Creek Guard Station 2007 Forest Crews Tamarack Aspen Improvement 27 Project – partially completed 2007 Forest Crews Juniper Thinning/sage steppe 67 enhancement 2011 Plum Joe Roadside hazard tree removal 9 2011 to 2015 Briles Bald Eagle Habitat Thinning, slash treatment, and 246 Improvement Project various silvicultural activities to enhance timber stand growth

Thinning around facilities is expected to have no effect on habitat since most of the work involves limbing trees and removal of trees but only if they pose risk to staff or recreationists. To date, no eagles have been detected at the station.

Various planting efforts would provide for coniferous stand enhancement, thereby providing long-term habitat.

The prescription for the Tamarack Aspen Improvement project was to remove competing conifers within targeted aspen stands. Conifers that were 21 inch dbh or less would be felled. The trees that could serve as potential habitat would remain on site post-project. The closest eagles to this project, the Cottonwood bald eagle pair, have not been sighted in the watershed where the Tamarack Project was located.

Firewood cutting is ongoing in the project area. Although snags could be removed in the territory, most of the activity would be outside of the critical nesting periods due to the usual wet conditions making the Willow Creek road impassable.

Currently, no other vegetation management projects are planned for the Lassen 15 project area. None of the past and future projects are located within the eagle territory. Therefore, there are no cumulative effects expected, due to vegetation management with respect to the Lassen 15 project.

Range: There are portions of three separate grazing allotments within the Lassen 15-project area: Fandango (125 acres), Davis Creek (387 acres), and Lassen Creek (24,712 acres). The

32 grazing cumulative effects section will focus on activities and conditions within the Lassen Allotment, since the bulk of the grazing activities within the Lassen 15 project area are contained within this area. The Lassen Creek allotment currently is split into a rotation system. Cattle may be present on the allotment from 16 May to 30 September.

The area on the whole is in satisfactory condition; livestock use is light over most of the area, especially under the areas with higher conifer cover (A. Cuzick, pers. comm.). Thinning, which would increase the amount of understory vegetation, could provide transitory range. This increase in forage could help distribute cattle use until the tree canopy closes again.

For some designated key riparian areas, livestock herbaceous use is moderate/heavy and streambank alteration is slight (J. Decker, pers. comm.). Although increased sedimentation from loss of cover and bank trampling does have the potential to negatively impact fish populations, the Lassen 15 Restoration Project does not contribute to sedimentation, due to the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs). See the Lassen 15 Hydrology Report prepared by Nick Semenza for specifics.

Since there would be no sedimentation related effects to fish from the Lassen 15 project, there would be no effect to bald eagle prey from timber management activities. An effects analysis detailing potential impacts from sedimentation from grazing would be covered under the Lassen Creek Grazing Project Environmental Assessment. Therefore, the Lassen 15 project would not contribute to cumulative effects for bald eagle.

Recreation: The following information was obtained by a discussion with Bill Tierney, retired Warner Mountain RD Recreation Officer as well as observations by M Flores. There is a variety of recreational activities that occur within the Lassen 15 project area: hunting, obsidian collection, horse use (mostly associated with the permittees), fishing, camping – both dispersed and developed site use. The level of use would be considered low to moderate for most of the activities except obsidian mining. The Rainbow mine is one of the focal points for recreational obsidian use on the District (B. Tierney, pers. comm.).

The Lassen Creek Campground, (Warner Mountain Ranger District) mainly serves the hunters, fishermen, and obsidian miners; however, there has been use by school groups and other campers in the past.

Outside of a low amount of hunting, almost no recreational activities occur within the bald eagle territory. Since the young would fledge during the bulk of the various hunting seasons, recreation would have discountable effects with respect to the Lassen 15 project.

Roads: The main road through the bald eagle territory is graded only when there is sufficient resource or road damage. The road crew also cleans culverts on an “as needed basis”. Crews can grade up to 5 miles of road a day, so large equipment would only be present for a short period of time after the LOP.

There could be other road work to improve watershed conditions in the near future, but they are not on the Forest Schedule of Proposed work at this time. Appropriate measures to protect bald

33 eagle would be included within the future project design standards. Therefore, roadwork is not expected to contribute to cumulative effects on bald eagles with respect to the Lassen 15 project.

Fire: Prescribed fire has been used many times within the Lassen 15 project areas in the recent past for multiple resource objectives including, but not limited to: stand treatment, fuels reduction, cultural basketry material enhancement, and big game habitat improvement. Although there has been a limited amount of tree mortality, there has probably been only a discountable effect to bald eagle, due to both the location of the activities on the landscape and habitat where they occurred (Table 16).

Table 16. Prescribed fire activities within 3 miles of the Lassen 15 project area. FACTS Activity Total Date Activity Identifier Acres 2006 Forest Crews Plum Valley follow up burning for juniper thinning 95 to enhance deer winter range 2005 Forest Crews South Obsidian sage steppe treatment prescribed 112 burn 2004- Forest Crews Sugar Hill underburning – in part to enhance big 669 2005 game habitat (only the acres that occurred within Lassen 15 cumulative effects analysis time frame)

Currently, there are no plans for additional fire related projects outside of those discussed for the Lassen 15 project. Therefore, prescribed fire would not contribute to cumulative effects for bald eagle or their habitat within the Lassen 15 project area.

Mining: The following information was provided by Jayne Biggerstaff, Modoc NF Special Uses Coordinator. There is one obsidian mine, the Lassen Creek Rainbow Mine (Rainbow), within the Lassen 15 Project area. Authorized mining activity occurs from May 1st to November 1st annually. Mining activity is a combination of commercial and personal use within the specifically delineated mining area. Excavation and removal of obsidian is done only with the use of non-mechanized hand tools.

Historically, the Rainbow has 2 to 3 commercial operators that would account for up to 3 vehicles and perhaps 6 individuals for days at a time and periodically throughout the authorized period. Because Rainbow is on a travel way to Lassen Creek Campground, recreational/personal use obsidian collection can account for several small family groups at the mine during any summer week. Rainbow is situated on spur roads off the main Forest Road and has adequate parking to accommodate all visitor vehicles off the roadway.

Although there could be a minor amount of disturbance, due to mining to bald eagle, there would be none associated with the nest site. Since the work is completed without large mining equipment and there is a relatively small amount of use of the area, obsidian mining would not contribute to cumulative effects to bald eagle .

34 Invasive plant control: There were 29 acres of physical removal of various noxious weeds within the Lassen 15 project area as well as 5.5 acres of herbicide control since 2009 (F. Gauna, pers. comm.). Herbicide use was within the standards and guidelines discussed with the USFWS during the Noxious Weed Treatment Project EIS planning process. Herbicides were used outside of the territory.

Current plans for noxious weed removal involve the use of physical treatments. There may be a beneficial effect to prey habitat by weed removal without any potential chemical interactions for bald eagle or its prey. Although bald eagles on the Modoc tend to forage on fish, waterfowl, and carrion, there have been remains of ground squirrels and other animals found under active nests. Eliminating weeds, thereby allowing native plants to thrive, could improve potential cover and food for some types of prey.

To summarize, there would be no negative impacts and a small, but insignificant, beneficial effect to prey habitat by the noxious weed treatments and management activities proposed in the Lassen 15 EA.

B. Private (past, present and future actions) There are no state lands adjacent to the Project Area.

There are several parcels of private land within and on the periphery of the Lassen 15 project area. They all receive livestock grazing during the summer and early fall months. The Willow Creek bald eagle pair could use these areas for foraging. Based on their consistent chick productivity, it is anticipated that there is sufficient food on the combined National Forest System and private lands. Therefore, there are no known negative effects to bald eagle from private lands.

Summary: Although there are multiple activities occurring on both Forest System and private lands, the Lassen 15 Project would not contribute to cumulative effects for bald eagle.

Fringed myotis Existing condition Species Account Fringed myotis have a patchy distribution ranging from British Columbia (Canada) south to Chiapas (Mexico) and from Santa Cruz Island (California) east to the Black Hills (South Dakota) (Western Bat Working Group 2005). These bats occur from sea-level to 9,350 feet, but are most common at middle elevations (3,937 to 6,890 feet). They utilize drier woodlands (oak, pinyon- juniper, ponderosa pine), but are found in a wide variety of habitats (Western Bat Working Group 2005). This species is not common in California; it is one of the rarer taxa found during surveys conducted in the central coast area to the foothills of the Sierra Nevada (California Department of Fish and Wildlife website).

Home range size for this species varied with insect abundance, increasing as the number of available prey decreases. Distances from roosting to foraging areas are up to eight kilometers

35 (Keinath 2005 in US Forest Service 2013). Cryan et al. 2001 noted that fringed myotis use relatively small areas and do not travel more than 2 km between roosts in the Black Hills of South Dakota.

Data from the Western Bat Working Group (2005) indicate that one young per female is generally born beginning in late June; young are fully capable of flight at 20 days. Young could be born from late May to early July with the timing of reproduction fairly consistent throughout the range (O’Farrell and Studier 1980).

In lieu of surveys, presence was assumed in the project area. According to the Pacific Southwest Regional Office staff, this is an appropriate method of analysis. This standard (to assume presence where surveys have not been conducted) has been in place since 1995. Regional Office Staff once again affirmed this guidance during the 2010 Biologist Meeting and during phone conversations held in December 2013.

Habitat Account Roosts: Although this species is found in a variety of habitats (dry woodlands, desert scrub, mesic coniferous forest, grassland, and sage-grass steppe [Western Bat Working Group 2005]), the lack of records make it difficult to assess habitat preferences in California (CDFW website). In general, this species is found in open habitats that have nearby dry forests and an open water source (Keinath 2004).

Fringed myotis roost in rock crevices, caves, buildings, and mines as well as large snags (CDFW website). Roosts generally consisted of small clusters of females. There are two types of roosts that dominate the literature: rock crevices and large snags.

Several researchers noted the importance of rock crevice roosts. Based on data from ponderosa pine habitats on the east side of the Cascades (which included sites on the Fremont–Winema NF), fringed myotis only used large snags on 6 occasions; the sites in Oregon were all in rock crevices (Lacki and Baker 2007). In the Black Hills of South Dakota, Cryan et al (2001) found that fringed myotis used rock crevices more frequently than trees. Fringed myotis used rock crevices exclusively in Mesa Verde National Park (Colorado) (O’Shea et. al. 2011).

The literature contained multiple studies, where fringed myotis used trees and snags as roost sites. Lacki and Baker (2007) noted the following characteristics about the snags used as roosts: (1) roost snags were located in stands of higher live tree densities; (2) these areas had greater basal areas of larger diameter trees and snags than the random sites; (3) the snags were the largest in the area (i.e. average size was 32.5 inch diameter at breast height; they were the tallest in height; and they extended above the canopy). On a study site in northwestern California, Weller and Zabel (2001) found a similar pattern, where roost snags were usually the tallest trees in the area surrounded by higher amounts of snags; roost snags in their study area averaged 47.56 inch dbh. Rabe et al. (1998) found 80 percent of the time fringed myotis roosted in ponderosa pine and mixed conifer sites in northern Arizona. Like Lacki and Baker (2007), roost snags averaged surrounded by higher tree densities, greater tree species diversity, and higher densities of snags and logs than random locations. Snags in their study averaged 27.2 inch dbh. Although large trees are considered important in most study areas, trees as small as 17 inch dbh were used in both the Black Hills (Cryan et al. 2001) and central Oregon (Cross et al. 1996).

36

Keinath (2004) discussed trends in both cliff and forest roosting habitat. Forested habitat was characterized by areas having aggregations of large, old snags in late successional habitat. This type of habitat has decreased in the regions he analyzed. He further stated that the removal of larger snags from older forest stands could continue the decline in the amount of habitat for fringed myotis.

Chung-MacCoubrey (2005) hypothesized that reproductively active female bats (including fringed myotis) may prefer pinyon-juniper woodlands for rearing their young in New Mexico. Lower elevation sites were thought to have warmer temperatures, which were associated with higher prey densities and foraging efficiencies; in addition, the habitats had more conducive thermodynamic conditions for females and young.

To reiterate, the literature identifies two separate types of roosting habitat. There is no electronic data quantifying the amount of rock crevices on the Forest. However, this habitat type would not be effected by management activities proposed in this EA. Using CWHR class 4 and 5 with M and D densities in all tree dominated stands, 12,624 acres of stands are within the proposed Lassen 15 project area, if tree dominated habitats are considered suitable fringed myotis roost habitat.

Prey/Foraging: Fringed myotis fly close to the tree canopy and forage on small invertebrates along streams and rivers using denser stands instead of rock crevices. (http://www.norcalbats.org/aboutbats.shtml). Various authors cited on this website drew the following conclusions. Black (1974) concluded the species appeared to be a beetle strategist, based on work conducted in New Mexico. Whitaker et al. (1977) found that moths were the dominant prey item in western Oregon. The feces of one individual captured on the upper Sacramento River in California contained predominantly beetles (Rainey and Pierson 1996). The presence of non-flying taxa in the diet of the Oregon animals suggests a foraging style that relies at least partially on gleaning (Western Bat Working Group 2005).

Recommendations of the juxtaposition of roosting, foraging, and watering habitat were detailed in Keinath (2004). He recommended that these habitats be within “roughly 1 to 4 km” in a configuration that minimizes distances travelled. Ideal sites would have roosts immediately adjacent to water in a mix of plant communities like pine, meadow, pinyon-juniper and sagebrush.

Keinath (2004) stated the trend in foraging habitat was harder to estimate than roosting habitat. Applications of herbicides and pesticides could render foraging habitat unsuitable, either through the direct poisoning of bats or the decrease in the insect prey base.

Environmental Effects:

Direct and Indirect Effects

Key Habitat Factor(s) for the Analysis: Changes in canopy cover and snag levels as well as potential disturbance to roosting bats.

37

No Action There would be no change in the amount and type of foraging or roosting habitat (i.e. snags), nor is there any potential disturbance to roosting bats by implementation of this alternative. In the absence of disturbance such as wildfire or bark beetle outbreak, the stand conditions likely would continue to move toward late-seral conditions over time.

Proposed Action It is difficult to assess the effect thinning green trees would have on fringed myotis. Lacki and Baker (2007) found that fringed myotis only used large snags on six occasions in ponderosa pine habitats in their study area (which included the Fremont-Winema NF, due north of the Modoc NF); the roost sites in Oregon were all in rock crevices on their study sites in Oregon.

The thinning units would have little to no effect on large snags, which would be a key roost site characteristic. Only trees that propose a safety hazard would be removed. The first iteration of the current Lassen 15 Project Area was a forest health project. Mortality pockets were of sufficient size that forest managers targeted the area for treatment. There would be a continued supply of snags overtime. Based on estimated mortality rates associated with the current high stocking levels throughout the majority of the project area as well as ocular observations, it is anticipated that the current level of existing large diameter snags is well above the three per acre prescribed in the SNFPA ROD 2004 (R. Cuzick, pers. comm.).

The snag levels found in other areas on the Warner Mountain and Devil’s Garden RDs are fairly consistent with what is found in the Lassen 15 project area. The snag level in all transects, except the early portion of the PSW snag study and the 1985 snag transects, were above LRMP stands. This trend has been consistent to the present based on snag transects run in 2016 within the project area. The snags in the matrix of the stands would be retained; therefore, the vast majority of the snags within the project area that could serve as roosts would remain after harvest. Therefore, removal of hazard trees is not expected to cause a trend toward listing for fringed myotis.

Post-harvest, there would be a decrease in cover around the snags on 5,120 acres or 40.5 percent of the project area (Table 17). It is important to note that the 40.5 percent decrease in habitat is a worst case scenario, given that fringed myotis were often found in open conditions and roosting in rock crevices on the Fremont-Winema NF. Using the two vegetation types with the greatest decrease (EPN 4 M and D and SMC 4 M and D), there would still be 22,672 acres of EPN and SMC habitat within a three mile buffer around the Lassen Project area that would remain to provide potential roost habitat for this species. Therefore, the Lassen 15 project may impact potential habitat, but would not lead toward a cause a trend toward listing for fringed myotis.

Table 17. Acres of pre- and post-harvest potential fringed myotis habitat. Pre-harvest Habitat (ac) Post-harvest Habitat (ac) Fringed Myotis 12,624 7,504

38 On its website, the Western Bat Working Group indicated the removal of large blocks of habitat was considered a potential threat to this species. If more open conditions provide suitable habitat, there would be no removal of large blocks of forested habitat under action alternative. If fringed myotis use denser stands of coniferous habitat on the Modoc NF, thinned stands would have variable canopies including areas of no treatment, so there would be small patches of potential habitat throughout the treatment units. In Douglas–fir forests in Oregon, Arnett and Hayes (2009) recommended retention of large (20 inch dbh) snags that protrude above the canopy, are located near a gap or edge, or have less canopy cover in a variety of topographic settings to provide roost habitat for multiple bat species. Keinath (2004) noted that conducting logging to promote heterogeneous vegetation communities and maintain structure and snags could stabilize fringed myotis habitat. Proposed thinning levels would be consistent with these recommendations.

Aspen treatments proposed in the Lassen 15 project likely would benefit fringed myotis. Various bat species use aspen as roosting substrate and foraging areas. Crampton and Barclay (1998) discuss little brown and silver-haired bat use of aspen as roost sites and foraging habitat in Alberta, Canada. Parsons et. al. (2003) detailed cavity characteristics in aspen trees used as roosts by three myotis species (not fringed myotis). One of the few sources of information concerning fringed myotis was from New Mexico. Aspen appears to provide “important” bat habitat in New Mexico during the non-winter months (http://www.bison- m.org/booklet.aspx?id=050047). The District wildlife staff plans to work with bat experts in the future to further refine bat use on the Warner Mountain RD and in aspen stands in particular.

Road construction and weir placement are expected to have few, if any, negative effects on fringed myotis. Only hazard trees would be removed from the roads, where work would be completed. The vast majority of the snags in the project area would remain on site. Road work and weir placement would have no effect on canopy cover within the project area.

Harvest has the potential to disturb individual bats, especially if vegetation management activities occur before August. However, due to 1) their relatively low abundance and 2) their proclivity for utilizing rock crevices for roosts in habitats adjacent to the Modoc NF (Lacki and Baker 2007), it is anticipated that there is a low potential for disturbance to females and their young.

To summarize, given the anticipated low use of the area by fringed myotis as well as the residual acres of potential conifer habitat inside the project area, the activities in the Proposed Action for the Lassen 15 project are not expected to lead toward a trend for listing for the fringed myotis or its habitat.

Cumulative Effects See the bald eagle section for background information concerning cumulative effects. A three- mile buffer was used as the spatial boundary; this area would encompass the distance bats have been known to fly from roosts to foraging areas. The temporal boundary would be ten years after the longest tenured project (Fiscal Year 2040).

No Action

39 Snags would increase over time. However, there could be an increase in the amount of potential coniferous habitat within the planning area for fringed myotis barring the presence of wild fire or insect outbreaks, like those found in the Dismal Swamp area.

Proposed Action Alternative A. Forest Service (past, present and future actions) Timber/Silviculture: See the bald eagle section for a list of vegetation management projects within the analysis area. The Briles Project likely would increase the potential for large trees on the landscape, while retaining the large trees and snags that bats would use. The prescriptions developed with the USFWS were to enhance the large tree component that was lacking in that area. Large trees would serve as habitat for both eagles and bats.

Other vegetation management activities such as thinning around facilities is expected to have little effect on habitat, since most of the work involves limbing trees and removal of trees only if they pose risk to staff or recreationists. Various planting efforts would provide for recruitment, thereby providing long-term habitat.

The prescription for the Tamarack Aspen Improvement Project was to remove competing conifers within targeted aspen stands; only aspen, which are hazards, would be felled. This action has only occurred a few times in the course of the aspen program begun in 1993. Conifers that are 21 inch dbh or less could be felled. The vast majority of the trees that could serve as potential habitat would remain on site post-project. It is anticipated that the aspen improvement project would provide beneficial effects to fringed myotis.

No other future large scale vegetation management projects are planned for the Lassen 15 project area. The Tamarack aspen improvement and Buck Creek maintenance projects are small acreages and consequently, would cause no change in the distance that fringed myotis would have to travel from potential roosts to foraging habitats. Therefore, there would be no change in connectivity for fringed myotis within the proximity of the Lassen 15 project area.

Some of the pockets of snags have been harvested by firewood cutters on the main Lassen Creek road as well as the road into Willow Creek. Although most of the trees were not the large, dominant ones in the stand, firewood gathering could have localized impacts on snags levels. Using a buffer of 100 feet from maintenance level 2 and better clearance roads, a maximum of eight percent of the Lassen 15 project area would have firewood cutting. As one goes farther south into the Lassen Creek watershed, based on regulations, wood cutters cannot select ponderosa pine. However, they do target species such as lodgepole pine. There are 44 acres of lodgepole within the 100 foot buffer from roads within the Lassen 15 project area. Given the relatively small amount of habitat that could be affected by firewood harvest as well as the low probability for a high density of bats using conifer stands in the Lassen 15 area, there are discountable effects to fringed myotis from firewood harvest.

Due to the small additional acreage of treatment occurring with the Buck Creek maintenance and Tamarack Aspen Improvement projects, there would be no contribution to cumulative effects to

40 fringe myotis and its habitat by implementation of the Lassen 15 Project with respect to vegetation management.

Range: Since these bats forage close to the tree canopy, there would be no impact to fringed myotis from livestock use of the Lassen 15 area.

Roads: There would be few effects to coniferous habitat by road grading or culvert maintenance. Crews can grade up to 5 miles of road a day, so large equipment would only be present for a short period of time in any given area. Therefore, potential for disturbance to bats would be low.

There could be other road work to improve watershed conditions in the near future, but they are not on the Forest Schedule of Proposed work at this time. Therefore, roadwork is not expected to contribute to cumulative effects on fringe myotis with respect to the Lassen 15 project.

Fire: See the bald eagle section for background information on prescribed fire activities. Prescribed fire causes incidental mortality to trees within proposed burn units. Therefore, prescribed fire is anticipated to increase the level of snags.

Currently, there are no plans for additional fire related projects outside of those discussed for the Lassen 15 project. Therefore, prescribed fire would not affect fringed myotis or their habitat within the Lassen 15 project area.

Mining: See the bald eagle section for the information about mining in the Lassen 15 area.

Since very few trees could be removed associated with mining and the fact that the work is completed without large mining equipment, obsidian mining would not affect fringed myotis.

Noxious Weed Management: Noxious weed treatments have included both physical and chemical treatments of scattered weed occurrences. There were 29 acres of physical removal of various noxious weeds within the Lassen 15 project area as well as 5.5 acres of herbicide control since 2009; in other words 0.022 percent of the analysis area has been treated with herbicides. This historic level of herbicide use would have had little detrimental effect in insect levels or small chance of poisoning bats as discussed in Keinath (2004).

Current plans for noxious weed removal involve the use of physical treatments. Removing noxious weeds would benefit the native plants in the project area, thereby, providing food and cover from plant species that prey species have evolved with. Therefore, noxious weed treatments should have beneficial effects to fringed myotis and their habitat.

Recreation: See the bald eagle section for the recreation activities occurring within the Lassen 15 project area.

Most of the recreational activities would have little impact on bats except for the removal of dead trees for firewood. This impact would be localized around the campground and the various dispersed campsites. Due to the low level of recreational use of the area, the effect would probably only cover one percent of the project area or less (which would be 250 acres).

41 Therefore, there would be discountable effects to fringed myotis and its habitat from recreation with respect to the Lassen 15 project.

B. Private (past, present and future actions) There are no state lands adjacent to the Project Area.

There are several parcels of private land within and on the periphery of the Lassen 15 project area. They all receive livestock grazing during the summer and early fall months. Given fringed myotis proclivities for foraging over coniferous canopies (including juniper), there are no known negative contributions to cumulative effects to fringed myotis from livestock grazing on private lands.

To summarize, the Lassen 15 Project would contribute to nominal cumulative effects for fringed myotis with regard to NFS and other lands.

Great Gray Owl Existing condition

Species Account The great gray owl, the largest owl in the Strix genus in North America, is the only member of its genus that breeds in both the Old and New Worlds. Primarily a bird of dense, northern boreal forests, it finds suitable coniferous habitat south into the northern Rocky and Sierra mountains and along some central Asiatic mountain chains (Bull and Duncan 1993). Bull et.al. (1988) stated that great gray owls are uncommon throughout their range. Wu et.al. (2015) noted they are “… the largest and arguably the rarest owl in North America.”

Evidence of great gray owl presence on the Warner Mountain Ranger District has been scarce and scattered. While there have been multiple individual great gray owl detections on the Devil’s Garden Ranger District and adjacent private lands, there have only been single detections of various types on the Warner Mountain Ranger District. A great gray owl contour feather was found near the headwaters of North Deep Creek in the late 1970's. The feather was confirmed by species authority Jon Winter as noted in Winter (1980).

The closest sighting to the Lassen 15 planning area was an unconfirmed sighting of a great gray owl near Bidwell Creek by spotted owl crews calling in the early 1990’s. No owls were detected during the follow up survey conducted for this 1990 detection. The Warner Mountain Ranger District wildlife staff conducted California spotted owl surveys on thousands of acres in the early 1990’s. No California spotted owls or great gray owls were detected during any of these efforts, although great gray owls have been detected in other areas (e.g. Sequoia National Forest) during spotted owl surveys.

In 1992, a formal survey was conducted in the central and southern portions of the District by a temporary employee, who had worked under Dr. Winter, great gray owl species expert. No great gray owls were found during that survey effort.

42 In 2011, the Warner Mountain Ranger District staff began formal great owl surveys utilizing the protocol developed by Beck and Winter (2000). A copy of this protocol is found in the Lassen 15 project file. Both the Homestead Flat and Lassen 15 project areas were surveyed using this great gray owl protocol. The protocol relies on broadcast surveys of great gray owl calls in potential habitat.

There were 29 stations surveyed within and adjacent to the Lassen 15 project area in the polygons recommended by Joe Croteau, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Environmental Program Manager, Timberland Conservation Program, Northern Region. He is also a lead for great gray owl surveys with the CDFW.

No great gray owls were detected during any surveys conducted in 2011 and 2012 for the Lassen 15 project conducted by both TEAMS and forest staff. Additional broadcast calls in a subset of points were conducted in 2013. Forest Service staff began re-survey of the 29 points in 2017; no great gray owls were detected during these sessions as of July 2017.

Habitat Account Great gray owls usually nest in dense, timbered stands adjacent to large open meadows. The average nest tree size was 39.5 inches dbh (Wu et al. 2015). However, great gray owls within the Barry Point Fire perimeter used east-side pine stands that often had smaller trees and more open canopies than discussed in the literature; it appeared that micro-sites containing pockets of dense trees (i.e. trees with mistletoe and larger branches) were important to owls (J. Croteau, pers. comm.).

Various researchers found great gray owls commonly used stick nests made by other species (e.g. northern goshawks [Bull and Duncan 1993]). After foraging in the morning, the males roosted during the day in stands with 11-59 percent canopy closure (71 percent of the males) or denser (29 percent of the males) (Bull and Henjum 1990).

Many authors have noted the importance of meadows as a component of suitable habitat, since great gray owls depend on meadows for foraging. Values of distance from the nest site to meadows edge range from 0 to approximately 918 feet in the high elevation sites, which included the areas near Yosemite National Park (Wu et al. 2015). The majority of the Lassen 15 project area would be considered high elevation.

Meadows associated with nest stands need to contain enough cover to provide for prey. In Manitoba during the summer, great gray owls avoided jack pine or black spruce stands; they foraged in open areas with few or no trees, and habitats with dense shrub layers (Servos 1986 in Bull and Duncan 1993). Based on the location of owl detections within conifer stands in close proximity to meadows and sage flats on the Modoc NF, it appears great gray owls forage in open habitats here as well. Diets for great gray owls consisted mainly of voles and pocket gophers (Bull and Duncan 1993).

Potential habitat was modeled as CWHR classes of eastside pine, ponderosa, Jeffrey, and lodge- pole pines in addition to Sierra mixed conifer size class 4 and 5 with M and D densities. A second analysis was conducted based on values for distance to nest site from meadow edge found in the Beck and Winter (2000) protocol in response to public comment. There were 452 43 acres of potential habitat in the Lassen 15 project area within 300 yards of meadows. This potential habitat is concentrated mainly in seven patches.

Since there have been no detections of great gray adults, young, sign, or nests within the Lassen 15 project area, no Protected Activity Centers have been established.

Environmental Effects: Direct and Indirect Effects Key Habitat Factor(s) for the Analysis: Potential decrease in coniferous canopy cover near meadows and disturbance to nesting owls.

No Action Direct and Indirect Effects: There would be no change in the current amount of habitat within the project area, nor would there be any disturbance to nesting owls.

Proposed Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects: Under this Alternative, 70 acres of potential habitat outside of Riparian Conservation Areas could be thinned. Retention standards prescribed in the SNFPA ROD 2004 for mechanical thinning would be met; post-harvest residual canopy cover would typically range between 30 to 40 percent post-treatment (R. Cuzick, pers. comm.) within the potential habitat. There are 382 acres or 85 percent of potential habitat within the project area that would receive no treatment or light thinning to meet Riparian Conservation objectives (Table 18).

Table 18. Pre- and post- harvest potential great grey owl habitat in the Lassen 15 area Pre-harvest Habitat (ac) Post-harvest Habitat (ac) Great Gray Owl 452 382

To date, no great owls or their sign (e.g. feathers) have been detected within the project area during great gray owl protocol surveys or stand searches for other raptors. Therefore, there would be no direct or indirect impact to owls. Consequently, there would be no disturbance to nesting owls by vegetation management, road work, or watershed restoration activities.

If owls are detected in the area in the future, District Wildlife Biologist staff would be consulted by timber contract administrators to determine appropriate LOP’s or any contractual changes needed (e.g. deletion of portions of units under contract C clauses).

To summarize, although there could be a decrease in the amount of acres of potential habitat within proposed units, eighty-five percent of the area would still remain to support great gray owls. If owls are detected in the project area in the future, management activities would be altered to be consistent with Modoc NF LRMP, as amended and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Therefore, the Lassen 15 Project may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend towards federal listing or loss of species viability for great gray owl.

44 Cumulative Effects For the purpose of this cumulative effects analysis, the existing condition derived from the 2004 EVEG data set reflects the past vegetation management activities; the veracity of this assumption was verified by Roy Cuzick, previous Silviculturist, based on field reconnaissance. The electronic CWHR and stand data was clipped to the project area to assess the potential cumulative effects of current and foreseeable projects. This area would encompass the range in distances from meadow edge into the forest for nesting owls. The cumulative effects time frame for this analysis would be ten years after the longest tenured project (Fiscal Year 2040), which would include current and reasonably foreseeable projects.

No Action Protocol surveys have detected no great gray owl within or in areas directly adjacent to the project. There would be no change to the amount of habitat by the implementation of this alternative; there would be no activities that could cause disturbance to owls. Therefore, there would be no cumulative effects associated with the no action alternative.

Proposed Action Timber/Silviculture: Most of the past silvicultural activities in the Lassen 15 project area are related to timber stand improvement projects, since many of the proposed units were re-planted in the 1940’s after a series of fires. Although there have been multiple thinning projects, there have been no timber sales within the potential great gray owl habitat within the temporal timeframe of the cumulative effects analysis. Therefore, any changes to stand structure from past vegetation management would be reflected in the vegetation data used for the direct and indirect effects analysis.

Pre-commercial thinning occurred in 1992 near Willow Creek and in 1995 near Bear Valley. These efforts would have removed trees 12 inches dbh and less; therefore, they would have no effect on potential great gray owl nesting habitat, since they use the larger dbh trees for nest sites.

Firewood cutting is ongoing in the project area. Snags could be removed within two of the patches and portions of a third, due to their close proximity to roads, the Lassen Creek campground, and dispersed campsites. However, most of the snags in these patches are “within 300 feet of any riparian area (lake, spring or stream)”; firewood removal is restricted within these riparian areas.

In addition, most of the areas where wood cutters would be harvesting are dominated by ponderosa pine and white fir. These tree species are not preferred firewood, because they burn too quickly to provide a good, consistent heat source. Since there are no lodgepole pine (which is a preferred firewood) in these three patches of potential habitat, it is anticipated that the removal of potential nest sites (aka snags) would be discountable. The other four patches would remain untouched, since they are less accessible to roads; therefore, there would be no changes in potential nest sites in snags or potential nests trees in those patches of potential habitat.

45 Currently, no other vegetation management projects are planned for the Lassen 15 project area. Since the recent activities did not affect habitat and there are no future projects planned, the Lassen 15 project would contribute the only effects.

Range: There are portions of three separate grazing allotments within the Lassen 15-project area: Fandango (125 acres), Davis Creek (387 acres), and Lassen Creek (24,712 acres). The grazing cumulative effects section will focus on activities and conditions within the Lassen Allotment, since the bulk of the grazing activities within the Lassen 15 project area are contained within this area. The Lassen Creek allotment currently is split into a rotation system. Cattle may be present on the allotment from 16 May to 30 September.

The area on the whole is in satisfactory condition; livestock use is light over most of the area, especially under the areas with higher conifer cover (A. Cuzick, pers. comm.). Thinning, which would increase the amount of understory vegetation, could provide transitory range. This increase in forage could help distribute cattle use until the tree canopy closes again. For some designated key riparian areas, livestock herbaceous use is moderate/heavy and streambank alteration is slight (J. Decker, pers. comm.). Although increased sedimentation from loss of cover and bank trampling does have the potential to negatively impact on fish populations, the Lassen 15 Restoration Project does not contribute to sedimentation, due to the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs). See the Lassen 15 Hydrology Report for specifics.

The decrease in the amount of cover could affect vole numbers and decrease the area’s suitability to support great gray owls. However, the Lassen 15 Restoration Project would not change the amount of herbaceous cover or negatively affect foraging habitat, due to the use of BMPs.

Livestock management would not affect the amount nesting habitat within the project area. There would be no disturbance from livestock management associated activities, because no great gray owls have been detected within the project area. An effects analysis detailing potential impacts from loss of cover needed for prey from grazing would be covered under the Lassen Creek Grazing Project Environmental Assessment. Therefore, livestock management would not contribute to cumulative effects to great gray owl with respect to the Lassen 15 project.

Recreation: The Lassen Creek Campground, which contains one of the patches of potential habitat, mainly serves hunters, fishermen, and obsidian miners; however, there has been use by school groups and other campers in the past. Although recreationists could disturb owls later in the nesting season, no owls or sign have been detected within the campground or adjacent areas during protocol surveys.

There is dispersed camping in one of the other patches on Lassen Creek due north of Harris Flat. No owls have been detected within this patch during protocol surveys. Recreationists could be a source of disturbance; however, they would have minimal impacts to habitat, since they can only remove downed wood for campfires (e.g. not snags).

Hunting would cause no disturbance to nesting owls, since hunts occur in the summer and fall; hunters using dispersed camps are not expected to effect the habitat, since only downed wood could be used for campfires.

46 To summarize, recreation could have localized, but discountable contributions to cumulative effects with respect to the Lassen 15 project on great gray owls.

Roads: Road maintenance would have no effect to potential habitat, since it would be limited to the road prism. Disturbance would be minimal, since activities typically don’t begin until June or later within the project area (A. Sarmiento, pers. comm.).

There could be other road work to improve watershed conditions in the near future, but they are not on the Forest Schedule of Proposed work at this time. Appropriate measures to protect great gray owl, if they are found in the future, would be included within the future project design standards. Therefore, roadwork is not expected to contribute to cumulative effects on great gray owl with respect to the Lassen 15 project.

Fire: Many areas within the project area have had prescribed fire within the past 20 years for multiple objectives including, but not limited to: stand treatment, fuels reduction, cultural basketry material enhancement, and big game habitat improvement. Although there has been a limited amount of tree mortality due to fire, there probably has been only a discountable effect to potential great gray owl habitat, due to the location of the burns on the landscape.

Currently, there are no plans for additional fire related projects outside of those discussed for the Lassen 15 project. Therefore, fire related projects would not contribute to cumulative effects to great gray owl or their potential habitat from prescribed fire within the Lassen 15 project area.

Mining: None of the potential habitat is located in areas where mining occurs. Therefore, mining would have no effects to great gray owl.

Invasive plant control: There were 29 acres of physical removal of various noxious weeds within the Lassen 15 project area as well as 5.5 acres of herbicide control since 2009 (F. Gauna, pers. comm.). Herbicide control was within the standards and guidelines discussed within the Noxious Weed Treatment Project EIS; it occurred west of the patch of potential habitat in the Lassen Creek Campground. It is anticipated that it would not remain in the system to affect potential prey species, since its half-life is 3 to 130 days (Schuette 1998).

Current plans for noxious weed removal involve the use of physical treatments. There may be a beneficial effect to potential prey habitat by weed removal without any potential chemical interactions to potential great gray prey. Eliminating weeds, thereby allowing native plants to thrive, could improve cover and food for some types of prey. However, these beneficial effects would be in small, localized areas. There would be a weed management plan implemented for the Lassen 15 project. The control of noxious weeds by both the Lassen 15 and the Modoc NF noxious weed treatment project would have localized, but beneficial effects to great gray owl, their prey and potential habitat.

Summary: Although there are multiple activities occurring on Forest System lands, the Lassen 15 Project would only contribute discountable cumulative effects to great gray owl and its potential habitat.

47 Northern Goshawk Existing Condition Species Account The northern goshawk is the largest accipiter in North America. It occupies a wide distribution, including boreal and temperate forests throughout the Holarctic (Squires and Reynolds 1997). The Holarctic encompasses all the non-tropical parts of Europe and Asia, Africa north of the Sahara, and North America south to the Mexican desert region (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/269108/Holarctic-region).

Northern goshawk surveys began under Ernie Camillari back in the late 1970’s (Table 19). Many of the PACs across the WMRD were established during his tenure. In the early 1990’s surveys morphed from stand searches around old nest sites to intensive stand searches of the entire nest stand. When Brian Woodbridge’s northern goshawk protocol was finalized, it became the standard for surveys (USDA FS 2000). Since that time, the WMRD has used a combination of all three surveys types: pre-dawn acoustical, stand search, and broadcast acoustical.

Surveys for the Lassen 15 project began in 2005 and continued until 2015. Timber Sale unit boundaries have changed multiple times over the planning life of the Lassen 15 project. Therefore, not all the units in the 8,000 acres of the project area were surveyed in any given year. Surveys were conducted by Forest Service crews; survey areas were augmented by TEAMS biologists in 2011 and 2012.

All areas with suitable habitat inside of or adjacent to units were surveyed. In addition, areas of suitable habitat within one half mile of units were surveyed. For example, portions of the plantation stands near Planter’s Camp and Briles Springs do not contain suitable habitat and were not surveyed.

The timber sale units were surveyed using the two year broadcast survey method, when the new technicians completed the surveys. Some of the units were surveyed to intensive stand search protocol if J. Clark or M. Flores were present; both biologists have multiple decades of survey experience. The PACs were surveyed utilizing a combination of pre-dawn, intensive stand search, and broadcast surveys.

The Lassen 15 project area and habitat directly adjacent to it contains multiple Protected Activity Centers (PACs) (Table 19). Levels of PAC occupancy has varied over time. It is important to note that the Ross Creek PAC was only recently found and has not been re-surveyed, due to law enforcement concerns.

48 Table 19. Occupancy of northern goshawk PACs in the Lassen 15 Project Area Number of Years Last Number of Number of Year Location Surveyed Year Established Years PAC has Years PAC has Since Used had goshawks had an active Established present nest Bear Valley* 1978 8 1995 4 2 Cold Creek 1996 13 2006 4 2 Fandango 1979 10 1979 2 1 Goose Creek 1982 8 2014 4 2 Lassen Creek* 1985 18 2010 9 7 Planter’s Camp 1980 15 2008 6 6 Ross Creek 2011 3 2011 3 1 Willow Creek-2 1985 15 2008 6 3 Vaughn 1979 5 1997 3 2 * Bear Valley and Lassen PACs combined based on the location of the nests with regard to suitable habitat.

Habitat Account

Nesting Habitat Northern goshawk nesting habitat varies, given its wide distribution. Numerous habitat studies and modeling efforts have found nest sites to be associated with similar factors: proximity to water or meadow habitat, forest openings, level terrain or ‘benches’ of gentle slope, northerly aspects, and patches of larger, denser trees (Woodbridge and Hargis 2006). High canopy cover was considered the most consistent structural feature across studies of goshawk nesting habitat (USFS 2001). Nest sites on the Warner Mountain Ranger District exhibit these characteristics.

The following information on nest trees is found in the northern goshawk account from the Birds of North America Online (Squires and Reynolds. 1997). Nest trees are typically the largest trees in the stand. Nests are usually constructed just below the forest canopy. The size and structure of nest trees may be more important than tree species for most goshawk populations. Trees with forked or whorled branching are generally used. Nests are often built on large horizontal limbs against the trunk or occasionally on large limbs away from the tree bole.

The following CWHR habitat types were considered as suitable nesting habitat: Eastside Pine, Ponderosa Pine, Jeffrey Pine, Sierran mixed conifer sizes 4, 5 and 6 with densities of M and D. Table 20 displays the CWHR types within the Northern Goshawk PACs that intersect the Lassen project area. Note that the majority of the Vaughn PAC lies outside of the project area. The Vaughn PAC is a total of 254 acres; the remaining 179 acres do not lie within the project area.

49 Table 20. CWHR types within Northern Goshawk PACs that intersect Lassen Project area Cold Goose Lassen Planter's Willow PAC Fandango Vaughn Creek Lake Creek Camp Creek (ac) (ac) Habitat Type (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) BAR 1.58 BBR 10.30 0.68 8.24 EPN 3D & 3M 6.54 0.23(in*) EPN 3P & 3S 5.43 0.54 3.90 0.06(in*) 3.41 EPN 4D & 4M 37.88 135.57 73.41 127.61 17.97(in) 135.39 EPN 4P & 4S 0.07 32.15 1.35 10.61 51.96 EPN 5D 11.77 JUN 4P 0.05 .05 (out) LPN 4D & 4M 9.82 LSG 7.45 1.17 3.29 MCP 0.07 1.20 5.23 10.14 (out) PGS 0.21 0.01 2.81 PPN 3D 0.60 PPN 4D & 4M 55.73 12.19 13.51 39.79 PPN 5D 13.93 SGB 0.05 11.48 3.13 14.08(out) SMC 3P 1.25 SMC 3D 0.02 SMC 4D & 55.37(in) 64.22 92.63 77.43 4M 139.6 (out) SMC 4P & 4S 1.29(in) 3.27 1.25 3.32 9.58 (out) SMC 5D 14.43 4.57(out) WFR 4D & 61.15 71.22 18.45 4M WFR 5D 3.10 23.92

Total 227.39 203.14 213.14 226.43 201.47 252.94 203.86

Foraging Habitat The following information in this paragraph came from various authors in Squires and Reynolds. 1997. In northern Arizona, foraging sites had greater canopy closure and density of trees that are >16.1 inch (>41 cm) dbh relative to contrast plots. In southwestern Yukon Territory, 33 percent of northern goshawk kills were in dense forests, even though this habitat covered only 18 percent of the study area.

In a California study, goshawks used mature and old-growth habitat (dbh ≥20.5 inch (52 cm), canopy closure ≥40 percent) (Austin 1993). However, the authors found conflicting patterns with respect to open areas. Austin (1993) found that goshawks avoided open habitats such as meadows, and seedling and sapling stands.

The most common prey species used on the Warner Mountains of the Modoc National Forest included: ground squirrels, Douglas squirrels, chipmunks, rabbits, northern flickers, and Steller’s

50 jays. Mammals appeared to be a more important part of the diet than birds (Promessi et al. 2004). Habitats used by the various prey species include the following:

Douglas squirrel – Uses medium-sized stands of intermediate to mature conifer habitats, containing tree/shrub ecotones, substantial canopy closure, large trees and snags with cavities, and adjacent riparian areas (Zeiner et. al. 1990).

Northern flicker – Uses open forest and shrub habitats with abundant edges of habitat types for feeding and snags for nesting (Zeiner et al. 1990). Flicker prefer forest edge and open woodlands approaching savannas; nest-tree species are strikingly variable with the open or savanna-like structure of the habitat, which provides space for foraging, more important than species of nest tree (Wiebe and Moore 2008).

Chipmunks – High populations of chipmunks are found in open sunny forests (Reynolds et al. 1992).

Cottontails – Habitat with well-developed shrub cover and herbaceous understory for food and cover (Reynolds et al. 1992)

Steller’s jay - The following information comes from various authors in Walker et al (2014). Coniferous and mixed coniferous-deciduous forest, open woodland, orchards, and gardens, including humid coniferous forest in northwest North America, are across their range. Steller’s jays are most abundant in fragmented, patchy forested landscapes, often along edges. Steller’s jays also utilize forest patches and edges in settled and recreation areas, although at lower densities. Some forest management practices, e.g. prescribed fire and selective harvest methods, contribute to landscape patchiness and diversity at the broad scale and, at the local scale, may create edges. One author found that, in the short term, density of Steller’s Jays increased following a fire event, although the amount of increase depended on the fire severity. Similarly, Steller’s jay abundance increased after treatments of group-selection timber harvest.

Other Habitats Used by Northern Goshawk Northern goshawk roosting habitat has been identified as a management concern (Kennedy et al.1994). Rickman et al. (2005) investigated night-roosting habitat of northern goshawks on the Eagle Lake Ranger District of the Lassen National Forest. They found that roost trees tended to (1) be located on north and east aspect slopes, and (2) have an average roost tree dbh smaller than nest tree dbh [41.7 cm (16.4 inch) verses 80.9 cm (31.8 inch)]. In addition, roost plots had significantly greater tree densities and fewer large trees than did nest plots. They recommended leaving unthinned patches in the treatment areas to provide potential roost sites for goshawk.

Dispersal habitat has not been studied on the Modoc National Forest. A study from the Kaibab area in Arizona, a pine dominated system surrounded by sage steppe habitat similar to the lower elevations of the Lassen 15 project area found that northern goshawk young had a wide range of dispersal movements reflecting great mobility and variation in behavior; young goshawks readily dispersed beyond the pine forests in the surrounding matrix of pinyon-juniper woodlands and shrub steppe cover types (Wiens et al, 2006). On a very different end of the habitat spectrum,

51 northern goshawks used public parks, cemeteries, hospital grounds and private gardens in the Hamburg, Germany area (Rutz 2003).

Wintering goshawk habitat is poorly understood, and the information is based mostly on European studies (Squires and Reynolds 1997). During the winter in Sweden, goshawks used a highly fragmented patchwork of clear-cuts and forest stands intermingled with wetlands and agricultural lands (Widen in Squires and Reynolds 1997). Although mature forests were preferred by goshawks wintering in Swedish boreal forests, edge habitats were used extensively by birds wintering in agricultural lands (Kenward and Widen 1989 in Squires and Reynolds 1997). These habitat-use differences are attributed to different prey distributions. In the Rocky Mountain region, wintering goshawks used riparian areas with cottonwood, aspen, spruce/fir, lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine, and open habitats (Squires and Ruggerio 1995). Various individuals have seen northern goshawks using the valleys floors near Alturas and Cedarville (Modoc National Forest staff from the 1980’s to 2014). Based on these sightings, it appears northern goshawks make a seasonal downslope migration during the winter months, presumably when prey would be less abundant.

Environmental Effects: Direct and Indirect Effects Key Habitat Factor(s) for the Analysis: Potential decrease in coniferous canopy cover in late seral habitat and disturbance to nesting goshawks.

No Action There would be an increase in the amount and type of nesting, foraging, or roosting habitat in the absence of wild fire or significant insect outbreaks. There would be no disturbance to nesting goshawks by activities proposed within the Lassen 15 project.

Proposed Action The northern goshawk PACs within the core of the Lassen 15 project area have been in place for over 20 years. No mechanical treatments are scheduled within any northern goshawk PACs, but there are plans to use prescribed burning in Unit 308-65 and 308-71 within the Willow Creek PAC to decrease fuel loads within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). Using prescribed burns in PACs located in WUIs would be consistent with the direction found in the Sierra Nevada Framework ROD (Page 60, Guideline 73). In proposed thinning units outside of PACs, there would be a gross decrease of 5,120 acres or 41 percent of CWHR EPN and SMC 4 M&D stands in the Lassen 15 project area (refer to Table 2). Stands with these CWHR classifications have been used as suitable nesting habitat for goshawks on the Warner Mountain Ranger District. Post-harvest, a total of 7,273 acres of potential nesting habitat using all of the suitable vegetation types would remain in the project area (Table 21).

Table 21. Pre- and post-harvest potential goshawk habitat within the Lassen 15 area. Pre-harvest Habitat (ac) Post-harvest Habitat (ac) Northern Goshawk 12,393 7,273

52

Using the two vegetation types with the greatest decrease (EPN 4 M and D and SMC 4 M and D), there would still be 22,672 acres of EPN and SMC habitat within a three mile buffer around the Lassen Project area that would provide potential nesting habitat for this species (Table 2).

In the short term, most of the thinned stands would not have sufficient canopy cover to be considered as suitable nesting habitat. Based on the FVS modeling completed by Roy Cuzick, previous Silviculturist, it is anticipated that thinned stands would exhibit some late seral characteristics (e.g. denser canopy cover, larger trees) on average 10 to 15 years post-treatment.

The Modoc LRMP, as amended by the Sierra Nevada Framework (USDA 2004), requires 200 acre PACs. All of the PACs within the Lassen 15 area meet the minimum acreage designated within the Modoc LRMP, as amended. The PACs consist of the best habitat collectively around the alternative nest sites attributed to any given territory. The areas utilized by nesting northern goshawks have stayed fairly consistent over time. It is this reason that it is anticipated that there would be a minimal change in the amount of occupied nesting habitat with the implementation of thinning proposed in the Lassen 15 project.

Conducting surveys in suitable habitat outside of PACs in areas where vegetation treatments may reduce habitat quality is consistent with direction found in the SNFPA ROD (pg 54). Based on data spanning 1978 to 2015, northern goshawk nests are usually about 1.5 miles apart. Using a 1.5 mile buffer around each PAC, only 497 acres of conifer stands would be thinned in areas outside of the zone of influence of the Lassen 15 goshawks. The units near Harris Flat, which are outside the 1.5 mile buffer around the PACs, have been surveyed multiple years. No goshawks were detected in those stands during any of the surveys. Therefore, it is unlikely that a goshawk outside of the PACs listed in Table 17 would be affected by thinning activities.

McGrath et al. (2003) stated “Given appropriate silvicultural prescriptions and timing of silvicultural practices that do not conflict with the nesting season, it should be possible to manage timber stands at varying distances from goshawk nests, including light thinning near the nest.” They went on to say that maximizing habitat heterogeneity would be appropriate; they also cautioned about potential reduction in habitat following severe wildfires, and said “recommendations for silvicultural activities should be developed with uncharacteristic wildfires in mind.” The variable thinning proposed within the Lassen 15 EA should be consistent with their findings.

Remains of more than 32 species of mammals and birds were found under goshawk nests in the Warner Mountains (Promessi et al. 2004). Thinning should benefit most of the prey species except Douglas Squirrel. Most prey species utilize ecotone habitats with varying amounts of shrub cover. Post-harvest stands within the matrix of the project area should exhibit an increase in understory grasses, forbs and shrubs, since decreasing overhead tree canopy covers increase understory vegetation production (Uresk and Severson 1989, Rasmussen 1990).

Douglas squirrel is the one species that could be negatively impacted by thinning. They utilize areas with larger trees in denser canopy covers. The decreases in potential Douglas squirrel habitat would be similar to those found in Table 21. Given the goshawk’s wide use of prey, a

53 decrease in the amount of potential habitat in one species is not expected to affect goshawks within the planning area.

Kalies et al. (2012) noted that small mammal species in ponderosa pine forests were adapted to the evolutionary environment in terms of forest composition and structure; specifically, “forest species were likely adapted to an open stand structure dominated by large diameter trees and an herbaceous understory”. Their research indicated that many species of small mammal responded well to restoration treatments, especially when attributes such as large trees, snags, and woody debris were retained. These conditions would be found post-treatment in the Lassen 15 project area. Converse et al. (2006) found similar results in ponderosa pine forests in northern Arizona; they stated forest thinning was expected to increase small-mammal densities, especially when shrub and down woody debris cover were maintained.

Other studies have noted that heterogeneous stand conditions could provide northern goshawk foraging habitat. Beier and Drennan (1997) observed goshawks using all types of forest stands. Northern goshawks have been observed moving from closed stands into open areas to capture prey in pine habitats similar to the lower elevations of the Lassen 15 project area (B. Woodbridge, pers. comm.).

To summarize, based on the retention of late seral patches and stands in the project area as well as the development of more heterogeneous stand conditions, the implementation of the activities analyzed in the Lassen 15 Restoration EA should have a beneficial long-term effect to prey habitat except for Douglas squirrel.

Aspen treatments would benefit goshawks. The majority of northern goshawk nests on the Warner Mountain RD are adjacent to meadows and/or aspen stands, which they use extensively for foraging.

Un-thinned areas could provide potential northern goshawk roosting cover, since the residual canopy cover in these clumps would retain late seral characteristics.

Dispersing goshawks exhibit a plasticity of habitat use (e.g. pinyon-juniper woodlands, sage steppe, and urban areas); therefore, there does not appear to be any impediment to goshawk dispersal by post-harvest stand conditions. The retention of larger trees and denser patches likely would provide greater and more heterogeneous cover in the future; therefore, the Lassen 15 project would not foreclose any future opportunities for dispersing individuals outside of naturally occurring barriers (e.g. Fandango Valley).

Road construction and weir placement are expected to have no effects on northern goshawk habitat. Only hazard trees could be removed from the roads, where work would be completed. The vast majority of the snags in the project area would remain on site. Road work and weir placement would have no effect on canopy cover within the project area.

Timber harvest and other management activities could cause disturbance to nesting goshawks. Pre-implementation surveys (either pre-dawn or broadcast surveys) would be conducted in or near treatment units that are within ¼ mile of PAC boundaries to protect birds from disturbance. If goshawks are detected during pre-dawn surveys, follow up broadcast surveys would be

54 conducted to determine nest site locations. Limited Operating Periods would be established on nest sites, if they are known. Otherwise, the LOP would be generated using the PAC boundaries. There is no direction to maintain LOPs outside of the breeding season; the LOP continues into mid-September.

If pre-implementation surveys are not conducted, occupancy for the area would be assumed until 15 September. See Framework direction below.

For northern goshawk PACs: Maintain a limited operating period (LOP), prohibiting vegetation treatments within approximately ¼ mile of the nest site during the breeding season (February 15 through September 15) unless surveys confirm that northern goshawks are not nesting. If the nest stand within a protected activity center (PAC) is unknown, either apply the LOP to a ¼- mile area surrounding the PAC, or survey to determine the nest stand location (USDA Forest Service 2004 page 60).

Although road work and weir placement could cause some level of disturbance, the vast majority of nest sites have been within the stands and have a vegetative buffer to dampen noise effects. Roadwork and weir placement are anticipated to occur outside of the critical portion of the nesting season. Noises associated with these activities should be masked by the ambient level of forest staff, recreationist, and other user’s traffic. Therefore, these activities are expected to have discountable effects on northern goshawk and their habitat.

To summarize, management activities proposed in the Lassen 15 EA would be consistent with Modoc NF LRMP, as amended. The actions would also be consistent with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Therefore, the Lassen 15 Project may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability for the northern goshawk.

Cumulative Effects See the bald eagle section for introductory comments concerning cumulative effects. The three- mile distance would equate to the potential area used by both directly affected and indirectly affected northern goshawk pairs, who average 1.5 miles between territories on the Warner Mountain RD.

No Action Alternative There are no effects associated with the no Action Alternative.

Proposed Action Alternative A. Forest Service (past, present and future actions) Timber/Silviculture: Northern goshawk surveys were conducted within the Briles Bald Eagle Improvement Sale area during the planning phase for that project. No goshawks were detected during those surveys. The focus of the project was to create larger trees. Long-term, the Briles Project area would provide better late seral habitat.

55 Thinning around the Buck Creek Guard Station is expected to have no effect on habitat, since most of the work involves limbing trees and removal of trees only if they pose risk to staff or recreationists. To date, no goshawks have been detected at the station.

Various planting efforts would provide for recruitment, thereby providing long-term habitat.

The prescription for the Tamarack Aspen Improvement project was to remove competing conifers within targeted aspen stands. As mentioned in the effects section, aspen improvement projects benefit goshawk foraging habitat.

Firewood cutting is ongoing in the project area; however, it is not expected to affect northern goshawk habitat. All of the goshawk nests on the District have been in large trees.

There should be adequate connectivity from a landscape perspective after treatment in and adjacent to the Lassen 15 project area. There is late seral habitat north of Fandango Valley in the Buck Creek and Tamarack Flat areas. There is additional suitable habitat south and west of the Lassen 15 project area near Buck Mountain and Sugar Hill. Therefore, the Lassen 15 project would not affect connectivity or dispersal opportunities for northern goshawk.

Currently, no other vegetation management projects are planned for the Lassen 15 project area. Therefore, there are no cumulative effects expected, due to vegetation management with respect to the Lassen 15 project.

Range: There are few anticipated effects to goshawk prey habitat by livestock, due to the relatively low amount of cattle use in the upland coniferous habitats. Although livestock can affect the conifer recruitment in planting units, it is anticipated that these effects would be localized around meadows and streams (C. Carlock, pers. comm.). There would probably be a low level of livestock impact to conifer seedlings in the Lassen15 project area, due to small planting units and steeper slopes (C. Carlock, pers. comm.). Therefore, there would be discountable effects to goshawk by livestock grazing in the Lassen 15 project area.

Recreation: See the bald eagle section for a list of recreational activities.

As with the bald eagle, outside of a low amount of hunting, almost no recreational activities occur within the various goshawk PACs. Since the young would be fledged during the bulk of the various hunting seasons, recreation would have discountable contributions to cumulative effects with respect to the Lassen 15 project.

Roads: Annual road maintenance would not affect habitat, but could cause some disturbance to nesting goshawks. Modoc LRMP direction, as amended, does not call for road closures during the nesting season. The level of disturbance, due to roadwork would be similar to the ambient level of disturbance from forest staff, recreationists, and other forest users. It would be conducted outside of the critical nesting period and almost all of the nests were set back from the road prism (Cold Creek was one exception); therefore, the potential abandonment of young would not be of concern.

56 There could be other road work to improve watershed conditions in the near future, but none is on the Forest Schedule of Proposed Work at this time. Appropriate measures to protect northern goshawk would be included within the future project design standards. Therefore, roadwork is not expected to contribute to the cumulative effect on goshawks with respect to the Lassen 15 project.

Fire: See the prescribed fire section within the bald eagle cumulative effects write up. Currently, there are no plans for additional fire related projects outside of those discussed for the Lassen 15 project. Therefore, prescribed fire would not contribute to cumulative effects on goshawk or their habitat within the Lassen 15 project area.

Mining: See the bald eagle section for a description of mining activities. Mining activities are located outside of all the goshawk PACs in the Lassen 15 area. Although there could be a minor amount of disturbance to northern goshawk with respect to mining, there is little potential habitat adjacent to the mine. Since the work is completed without large mining equipment and there is a relatively small amount of use for the area, obsidian mining would have discountable contributions to the cumulative effects for northern goshawk.

Invasive plant control: There were 29 acres of physical removal of various noxious weeds within the Lassen 15 project area as well as 5.5 acres of herbicide control since 2009. Herbicide use is within the standards and guidelines discussed with the USFWS during the Noxious Weed Treatment Project EIS planning process.

Current plans for noxious weed removal involve the use of physical treatments. There may be a beneficial effect to prey habitat by weed removal. As with the bald eagle, eliminating weeds, thereby allowing native plants to thrive, could improve potential cover and food for some types of prey.

To summarize, there would be no negative impacts and a small, but insignificant beneficial cumulative effects to prey habitat by the noxious weed treatments and management activities proposed in the Lassen 15 EA.

B. Private (past, present and future actions)

There are no state lands adjacent to the Project Area.

There are several parcels of private land within and on the periphery of the Lassen 15 project area. They all receive livestock grazing during the summer and early fall months. Given the location of the various PAC’s (they are far from large tracts of private lands), it is anticipated that there would be few impacts from the grazing for goshawk. There are no known timber harvest plans for the private lands within the buffer, so there would be no decreases in the amount of potential habitat, where it exists. Most of the private lands have meadow or juniper/sage steppe habitats. Therefore, there are no known negative cumulative effects to goshawk from private lands.

To summarize, the Lassen 15 Project would contribute to nominal cumulative effects for northern goshawk with regard to NFS and other lands. 57

Pallid Bat Existing condition Species Account The pallid bat distribution extends from southern British Columbia to Queretaro and Jalisco (Mexico), and east to Texas (Western Bat Working Group 2005). These bats inhabit low- elevation (< 6,000 feet) rocky arid deserts, canyon lands, and shrub-steppe grasslands to higher-elevation coniferous forests; it is most abundant in xeric ecosystems such as the Great Basin and the Mojave and Sonoran Deserts (Western Bat Working Group 2005). It is ranked as vulnerable in California (NatureServe 2011).

The following information comes from the California Department of Fish and Game Website (http://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=2349&inline=1). The pallid bat is a locally common species of low elevations in California. It occurs throughout California except in the high Sierra Nevada from Shasta to Kern counties, and the northwestern corner of the state from Del Norte to northern Mendocino County. It is a year-long resident in most of its range.

No surveys were conducted for this species since there is no one on forest with the appropriate permits from the State of California. Therefore, M. Flores assumed pallid bats are present in the Lassen 15 project area.

Habitat Account Pallid bats use open habitats (e.g. grasslands) and forests in California (http://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=2349&inline=1). Pallid bats tend to be more prevalent within edges, open stands, and open areas without trees (USFS 2001, Vol. 3, chapter 3, part 4.4, p. 55).

Pallid bats roost in (1) caves, (2) rock and cliff crevices, (3) under bridges or in buildings, or (4) in dead or living trees with a cavity or other deformity (Zeiner et al. 1990, Lewis 1994, Szewczak et al. 1998). Both day and night roosts are used. Night roosts are used between foraging endeavors. Night roosts in Oregon consisted of buildings, rock overhangs, and bridges (Lewis 1994).

The following information concerning roost trees is from Tom Rickman, District Biologist, (pers. comm.) on the Eagle Lake RD of the Lassen NF. The habitats he conducted his research in are similar to those found in and near the Lassen 15 project area. In 2001to 2004, pallid bats were mist-netted on the Eagle Lake RD (ELRD) of the Lassen NF. In addition, thirteen pallid bat maternity roosts were located on the ELRD using radio-telemetry. All the maternity roosts were in trees: one aspen, three incense-cedars, eight ponderosa, and one Jeffrey pine. Average diameter of the roost trees was 30.3 inches dbh. The smallest diameter roost was a 12.7-inch dbh aspen; the smallest diameter coniferous roost tree was a 23.5-inch dbh ponderosa pine.

Primary prey species are large, terrestrial arthropods such as scorpions, ground crickets, and beetles (Hermanson and O'Shea 1983). They forage over open shrub-steppe grasslands, oak savannah grasslands, open ponderosa pine forests, talus slopes, gravel roads, lava flows, fruit

58 orchards, and vineyards (Western Bat Working Group 2005). This species may forage up to three miles from the day roost (Zeiner et al. 1990).

For this analysis, potential roosting habitat was defined as larger-diameter trees (Size class 4 and 5) in open canopied forests (S and P densities). There are 2,417 acres of potential pallid bat roosting and foraging habitat within the Lassen 15 project area.

Environmental Effects: Direct and Indirect Effects Key Habitat Factor(s) for the Analysis: Changes in canopy cover and snag levels as well as potential disturbance to roosting bats.

No Action Alternative There would be no direct effects to the amount and type of foraging or roosting habitat, nor is there any potential disturbance to roosting bats in or adjacent to the Project Area by implementation of this Alternative.

Proposed Action Alternative Currently, 2,417 acres of potential pallid bat habitat occur within the Lassen 15 project area (Table 22). Thinning would increase habitat by 5,274 acres, which would benefit pallid bat, since they use habitats that are more open. The largest trees would remain on-site. According to the telemetry data, pallid bats selected larger diameter coniferous trees (average 30-inch dbh). The trees with the greatest potential to be roosting habitat would remain in the project area after implementation of the Proposed Action. Therefore, green tree thinning is not expected to affect pallid bat habitat.

Table 22. Pre- and post- harvest acres of pallid bat habitat in the Lassen15 project area. Pre-harvest Habitat (ac) Post-harvest Habitat (ac) Pallid Bat 2,417 7,691

Dead trees along the roadsides, which are deemed hazards to public safety, could be removed during the implementation of the Proposed Action. As discussed in the fringed myotis section, the vast majority of snags would be left on site post-project. Therefore, removal of hazard trees is expected to have a discountable negative effect to pallid bat habitat.

Thinning coniferous stands increases understory vegetation, which can provide higher amounts of invertebrate biomass (Rumble and Anderson 1996 in Mills, Rumble, and Flake 2000); Mills, Rumble and Flake (2000) felt as long as vertical structure remained after harvest, selective logging could increase foraging opportunities (increased invertebrates) for bird species that forage near the ground. Invertebrates would also provide potential prey for bat species so this research would be germane to pallid bat.

59 Some disturbance to roosting individuals potentially would occur, if project activities take place adjacent to a roost tree. This disturbance is anticipated to be of short duration. A typical duration for the type of treatments discussed associated with the Lassen 15 project would be similar to those discussed in the Knobcone EA; it is anticipated that purchasers would treat 20 to 30 acres per day (C. Sanders, pers. comm.). The outer distance from the potential roost tree at the end of the day would be 527 feet from a 20-acre patch treatment, 589 feet for a 25-acre treatment, and 645 feet from a 30-acre treatment (J. Landoski, pers. comm.). By the end of two days, treatments would be almost a quarter mile away from the potential roost tree, depending on production levels; one- quarter mile is a typical distance for limited operating periods to minimize disturbance to various species. Although the treatments may disturb some roosting individuals, this disturbance would be of short duration and would not lead toward a trend for listing in a species. The primary habitats for this species, xeric shrub habitats throughout the Great Basin, are not affected by this project.

As with the fringed myotis, road construction and weir placement are expected to have few, if any, negative effects on pallid bat. Only hazard trees could be removed from the roads, where work would be completed. The vast majority of the snags in the project area would remain on site.

Cumulative Effects General discussion See the bald eagle discussion for introductory comments concerning cumulative effects. The three- mile cumulative effects spatial boundary equates to foraging distances from day roosts. The cumulative effects temporal boundary is from the present until 2040.

No Action Alternative There would be no significant cumulative effects associated with the no action alternative.

Proposed Action Alternative A. Forest Service (past, present and future actions) Timber/Silviculture: See the bald eagle for a list of the projects occurring within the 3-mile spatial cumulative effects buffer. The Briles Project would increase the potential roost sites overtime. Maintenance around Buck Creek Station would have little effect on the stand level amount of large snags and green trees even though single hazard trees could be removed.

Using a model developed by various researchers for Marin County (Collins et al. 2007), there would be no change in habitat connectivity for pallid bat, due to implementation of present and foreseeable vegetation management actions. After treatment, there would be no change in the amount or location of sage-steppe and dry-meadow habitat within three miles of the Lassen 15 project area. The amount of larger-diameter pine (over 21 inches dbh) would not change after treatment in any of the Lassen 15 project area. Consequently, there would be little to no change in the amount of potential roost habitat in or around the Lassen 15 project area. This means there would be no change in the distance that pallid bats would have to travel from roosts to foraging habitats. Therefore, there would be no change in connectivity for pallid bat in the proximity of the Lassen 15 project area.

60 The potential effects of firewood harvest would be similar to those discussed under the fringed myotis section. Given the relatively small amount of habitat that could be affected by fire wood harvest, there are discountable effects to pallid bat from firewood harvest.

Due to the potential improvement to foraging habitat, the maintenance of potential roost trees except for hazard trees, and the retention of habitat connectivity, there likely would be beneficial to neutral contributions to cumulative effects to pallid bat and its habitat by implementation of the various vegetation management projects within and adjacent to the Lassen 15 Project.

Range: Livestock grazing likely would have a beneficial effect on pallid bat since it utilizes open areas including gravel roads for foraging. Therefore, the Lassen 15 project is not anticipated to have negative cumulative effects on pallid bats with respect to grazing.

Noxious Weed Management: Noxious weed treatments have included both physical and chemical treatments of scattered single plants. Removing noxious weeds would benefit the native plants in the project area, thereby providing food and cover from plant species with which prey species have evolved. Current plans are to use physical methods to treat weeds. Therefore, noxious weed treatments should have discountable beneficial cumulative effects to pallid bat and their habitat.

Recreation: The following information was obtained by a discussion with Bill Tierney, retired Warner Mountain RD Recreation Officer, and observations by M Flores. A variety of recreational activities occur within the Lassen 15 project area: hunting, obsidian collection, horse use mostly associated with the permittees, camping – both dispersed and developed site use, and fishing. The level of use would be considered low to moderate for most of the activities except obsidian mining. The Rainbow Mine is one of the focal points for recreational obsidian use on the District (B. Tierney, pers. comm.).

The Lassen Campground mainly serves the hunters, fishermen, and obsidian mining; however, there has been use by school groups and other campers in the past.

Group horse events have occurred in other parts of the Warner Mountain RD. There is the potential they could use the Lassen 15 project area in the future (B. Tierney, pers. comm.). A special use permit would cover accepted activities, so potential impacts would probably be limited to a short-term disturbance during the event.

As with the fringed myotis, most of the recreational activities would have little impact on pallid bats except for the removal of dead trees for firewood. This impact would be localized around the campground and the various dispersed campsites. Due to the low level of recreational use of the area, the effect would probably be limited to one percent of the project area or less (which would be 250 acres). Therefore, there would be discountable cumulative effects to pallid bat and its habitat from recreation with respect to the Lassen 15 project.

To summarize, there would be discountable cumulative effects to pallid bat from past, present and foreseeable actions conducted within and adjacent to the Lassen 15 project area.

61 B. Private (past, present and future actions) There are no state lands adjacent to the Project Area.

There are several parcels of private land within and on the periphery of the Lassen 15 project area. They all receive livestock grazing during the summer and early fall months. Given the use of open areas for roosting and foraging habitat for pallid bats, there are no expected cumulative effects from private lands.

To summarize, the Lassen 15 Project would contribute nominal cumulative effects for pallid bat with regard to NFS and other lands.

VI. DETERMINATION

Table 23 is a summary of the determination for species covered in this document. Species Name Proposed Action No Action Gray wolf No Effect No Effect Northern spotted owl No Effect No Effect Yellow-billed cuckoo No Effect No Effect Pacific Fisher No Effect No Effect Greater sage-grouse No Effect No Effect Pacific (was American) May affect individuals, but is not likely to result No Effect marten in a trend towards federal listing or loss of species viability Bald eagle May affect individuals, but is not likely to result No Effect in a trend towards federal listing or loss of species viability Bing’s checkerspot May affect individuals, but is not likely to result No Effect butterfly in a trend towards federal listing or loss of species viability California spotted owl No Effect No Effect California wolverine No Effect No Effect Fringed myotis May affect individuals, but is not likely to result No Effect in a trend towards federal listing or loss of species viability Great gray owl May affect individuals, but is not likely to result No Effect in a trend towards federal listing or loss of species viability Greater sandhill crane No Effect No Effect Northern goshawk May affect individuals, but is not likely to result No Effect in a trend towards federal listing or loss of species viability Pallid bat May affect individuals, but is not likely to result No Effect in a trend towards federal listing or loss of species viability Pygmy rabbit No Effect No Effect Townsend’s big-eared bat No Effect No Effect

62 VII. PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS

Jayne Biggerstaff. 2015. Reality Specialist. Modoc NF, Alturas, CA.

Dan Blake. 2016. Deputy Field Supervisor. Klamath Falls USFWS. Klamath Falls, OR. Cathy Carlock. 2011. Culturist. Modoc NF, Cedarville, CA.

Joe Croteau. 2013. Environmental Program Manager Timberland Conservation Program, Northern Region. CDFW. Yreka, CA.

Adrian Cuzick. 2015. Previous Rangeland Management Specialist for Modoc National Forest. Alturas, CA.

Roy Cuzick. 2015. Previous Silviculturist for Modoc NF. Alturas, CA.

Jaycee Decker. 2017. Rangeland Management Specialist. Modoc National Forest, Alturas, CA

Mark Deperro. 2015. Zone Fuels Specialist, Modoc NF. Alturas, CA

Elias Flores, Jr. 2013. Supervisory Natural Resource Specialist. BLM, Surprise Field Station, Cedarville, CA.

Todd Forbes. 2013. Wildlife Biologist. BLM, Lakeview Field Office, Lakeview, OR.

Forest Gauna. 2015. Previous Forest Botanist, Modoc NF. Alturas, CA

John Landoski. 2011. Vegetation Management Staff, West Zone, Modoc NF. Adin, CA.

Tom Rickman. 2011, 2016, and 2017. Wildlife Biologist, Lassen NF. Susanville, CA.

Cherie Sanders. 2011. Retired Sale Administrator, Modoc NF. Alturas, CA.

Bill Tierney. 2015. Retired Recreation Officer, Warner Mountain Ranger District. Modoc NF. Cedarville, CA.

Elizabeth Willy. 2017. Wildlife Biologist. Klamath Falls USFWS. Klamath Falls, OR.

Brian Woodbridge. 2012. USFWS Wildlife Biologist. Yreka, CA.

VIII. LITERATURE CITED

Arnett, E., R. Anderson, C. Sokol, F. Issacs, R. Anthony, and W. Erickson. 2001. Relationships between nesting bald eagles and selective logging in south-central Oregon. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29(3): 795-803.

Arnett, E. and J. Hayes. 2009. Use of conifer snags as roosts by female bats in western Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 73(2): 214-225.

63 Austin, K. 1993. Habitat use and home range size of breeding northern goshawks in the southern Cascades. Master’s Thesis, Oregon State University.

Baughman, J.F, and D.D. Murphy. 1998. Differentiation in a Widely Distributed, Polytypic Butterfly Genus: Five New Subspecies of California Euphydryas (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). In: Emmel, T.C. [Ed.]. 1998. Systematics of Western North American Butterflies. Mariposa Press, Gainesville, FL. pp 397. In Biological Evaluation Template for Bing’s Checkerspot Euphydryas editha bingi Baughman & Murphy, 1998. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 5 pp.

Beck, T.W. and J. Winter. 2000. Survey protocol for the great gray owl in the Sierra Nevada of California. California Department of Fish and Game. 32 pages.

Beier, P., and J. E. Drennan. 1997. Forest structure and prey abundance in foraging areas of northern goshawks. Ecological Applications 7:564-571.

Black, H. L. 1974. A north temperate bat community: structure and prey populations. J. Mammal. 55:138-157.

Buehler, D.A. 2000. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). In The Birds of North America, No. 506 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Bull, Evelyn L. and James R. Duncan. 1993. Great Gray Owl (Strix nebulosa), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online:

Bull, E. L., M. G. Henjum, and R. S. Rohweder. 1988. Home range and dispersal of Great Gray Owls in northeastern Oregon. J. Raptor Res. 22:101-106.

Bull, E. L. and M. G. Henjum. 1990. Ecology of the great gray owl. U.S. Dept. Agric., For. Serv., Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-265.

Buskirk and Ruggiero (1994) in Ruggiero, L., K. Aubry, S. Buskirk, J. Lyon, and W. Zielinski, technical editors. 1994. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores (American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine) in the western United States. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-254. Rocky Mountain Experiment Station. Fort Collins, CO. 184pp.

Chapin, T.G., D.J. Harrison and D.D. Katnik. 1998. Influence of landscape pattern on habitat use by American marten in an industrial forest. Conservation Biology 12: 1327-1337.

Chung-MacCoubrey, A. 2005. Use of pinyon-juniper woodlands by bats in New Mexico. Forest Ecology and Management 204: 209-220.

Collins, J, J. Didonato, G. Geupel, L. Grenier, T. Kucera, B. Lidicker, B. Rainey, and S. Rotternborn. 2007. Ecological Connections between Baylands and Uplands: Examples from Marin County. A Report to the Marin Audubon Society, Marin Conservation League, Marin Baylands Advocates, Sierra Club. SFEI Report No. 521. 68 pages.

64 Converse, S.J., W.M. Block, and G.C. White. 2006. Small mammal population and habitat responses to forest thinning and prescribed fire. Forest Ecology and Management 228: 263-273.

Crampton, L. and R. Barclay. 1998. Selection of roosting and foraging habitat by bats in different-aged aspen mixed wood stands. Conservation biology 12 (6): 1347-1358.

Cross, S., H. Lauchstedt, and C. Harmes. 1996. Characterizing forest roost sites of some bats of special concern occurring in Roseburg and Medford BLM Districts. Final Report. 64 pp.

Cryan, P., M. Bogan, and G. Yanega. 2001. Roosting habits of four bat species in the Black Hills of South Dakota. Acta Chiropterologica 3(1): 43-52.

Cuzick, R. 2016. Lassen 15 Restoration Silviculture Report. Modoc NF. Alturas, CA. 100 pp.

Fraser, J., L. Frenzel, and J. Mathisen. 1985. The impact of human activities on breeding bald eagles in north-central Minnesota. J. Wildl. Manage. 49:585-592.

Grubb, T. and R. King. 1991. Assessing human disturbance of breeding bald eagles with classification tree models. J. Wildl. Manage. 55:500-511.

Hargis CD, Bissonette JA, Turner DL. 1999. The influence of forest fragmentation and landscape pattern on American martens. J Appl Ecol 36(1):157 - 172.

Hermanson, J.W., and T.J. O’Shea. 1983. Antrozous pallidus. Mammalian Species No. 213. 8 pp.

Hughes, J. 1999. Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus). In Birds of North America, Appendix V - Terrestrial Wildlife Biological Assessment V-84 Modoc National Forest Noxious Weed Treatment Project Environmental Impact Statement Volume 2 – Part 2 – Appendix S-W No. 418 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Pennsylvania.

Hughes, Janice M. 2015. Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/bna.418

Kalies, E., B. Dickson, C. Chambers, and W. Covington. 2012. Community occupancy responses of small mammals to restoration treatments in ponderosa pine forests, northern Arizona, USA. Ecological Applications 22(1): 204-217.

Keinath, D.A. (2004). Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/fringedmyotis.pdf.

Kennedy, P. L., J. M. Ward, G. A. Rinker, and J. A. Gessaman. 1994. Post-fledging areas in northern goshawk home ranges. Studies in Avian Biology 16: 75–82.

Knight, R. and S. Knight. 1984. Responses of wintering bald eagles to boating activity. J. Wildl. Manage. 48:999-1004.

65 Kucera, T.E., W.L. Zielinski, and R.H. Barrett. 1995. Current distribution of the American Marten, Martes Americana, in California. Calif. Fish and Game 81(3): 96-103. 1995.

Lacki, M. and M. Baker. 2007. Day roosts of female fringe-myotis (Myotis thysandodes) in xeric forests of the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Mammalogy 88(4): 967-973.

Laymon, S.A., P.L. Williams, and M.D. Halterman. 1993. Monitoring of riparian habitat restoration sites: Breeding birds and habitat characteristics, 1992, and Yellow-billed Cuckoo study, 1992. Admin. Rept. The Nature Conservancy, Kern River Preserve, #CARO 060894. and California Dept. of Fish and Game #FG1496.

Lehman, R. N. 1979. A survey of selected habitat features of 95 bald eagle nest sites in California. California Dept. Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. Wildlife Management Branch Administrative Report 79-1. 23 pages.

Lewis, S. 1994. Night roosting ecology of pallid bats (Antrozous pallidus) in Oregon. American Midland Naturalist 132 (2): 219-226.

McGrath, M.T., S. DeStefano, R.A. Riggs, L.L. Irwin, and G.J. Roloff. 2003. Spatially explicit influences on northern goshawk nesting habitat in the interior Pacific Northwest. Wildlife Monographs 154:1-63.

Mills, T., M. Rumble, and L. Flake. 2000. Habitat of birds in ponderosa pine and aspen/birch forest in the black hills, South Dakota. Journal of Field Ornithology 71(2): 187-206.

O’Farrell, M. and E. Studier. 1980. Myotis thysanodes. Mammalian Species No. 137. 5pp.

O’Shea, T., P. Cryan, E.A. Snider, E. Valdez, L. Ellison, and D. Neubaum. 2011. Bats of Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado: composition, reproduction, and roosting habits. Monographs of the Western North American Naturalist 5: 1-19.

Parsons, S., K. Lewis, and J. Psyllakis. 2003. Relationships between roosting habitat of bats and decay of aspen in the sub-boreal forests of British Columbia. Forest Ecology and Management 177: 559-570.

Polite, C., J. Pratt and L. Kiff. 1990. Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus. in: D.C. Zeiner,

W.F. Laudenslayer, K.E. Mayer and M. White, eds. California Wildlife: Volume II - birds. California Dept. of Fish and Game. Sacramento.

Potvin, F., L. Belanger and K. Lowell. 2000. Marten habitat selection in a clearcut boreal landscape. Conservation Biology 14: 844-857.

Promessi, R., J. Matson, and M. Flores. 2004. Diets of northern goshawks in the Warner Mountains, California. Western North American Naturalist. 64(3): 359-363.

66 Rabe, M. T. Morrell, H. Green, J. deVos, and C.R. Milller. 1998. Characteristics of ponderosa pine snag roosts used by reproductive bats in northern Arizona. Journal of Wildlife Management 62(2): 612- 621.

Rasmussen, M. 1990. Understory production and plant nitrogen on limestone soils in the Black Hills of South Dakota. M.S. Thesis, South Dakota State University, Brookings, S.D. 116 p.

Reynolds, R.T.; Graham, R.T.; Reiser, M.H.; Bassett, R.L.; Kennedy, P.L; Boyce, D.A., Jr; Goodwin, G.; Smith, R.; and Fisher, E.L. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. General Technical Report RM-217. USDA Forest Service.

Rickman, T.H., B.E. Jones, D.R. Cluck, D.J. Richter, and K.W. Tate. 2005. Night roost habitat of radio-tagged northern goshawks on Lassen National Forest, California. Journal of Wildlife Management 69 (4): 1737-1742.

Ruggiero, L., K. Aubry, S. Buskirk, J. Lyon, and W. Zielinski, technical editors. 1994. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores (American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine) in the western United States. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-254. Rocky Mountain Experiment Station. Fort Collins, CO. 184pp.

Rutz, C. 2003. Post-fleding dispersal of northern goshawks Accipiter genetilis in an urban environment. Vogelwelt 124: 93-101.

Semenza, N. 2015. Hydrology Report Lassen 15 Restoration Project. Modoc NF. Alturas, CA, 47 pp.

Schempf, P.F., and M. White. 1977. Status of six furbearer populations in the mountains of northern California. USDA Forest Service. 51 pp.

Shimamoto, K. and T. Newman. 1981. California Wildlife and Fish Habitat Relationships System Habitat Capability Model: Bald Eagle. In K. Shimamoto and D. Airola (eds.) Fish and Wildlife Habitat Capability Models and Special Habitat Criteria for the Northeast Zone National Forests. 260 pp.

Squires, John R. and Richard T. Reynolds. 1997. Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/298 doi:10.2173/bna.298.

Squires, J. and L. Ruggiero. 1995. Winter movements of adult northern goshawks that nested in southcentral Wyoming. Journal of Raptor Research 29(1): 5-9.

Szewczak, J., S. Szewczak, M. Morrison, and L. Hall. 1998. Bats of the White and Inyo Mountains of California-Nevada. Great Basin Naturalist 58 (1): 66-75.

Ulmschneider, H., Hayes, D., Roberts, H.B., Rachlow, J.L., Forbes, T., Himes, J.G., Sequin, E., Haworth, M., Katzner, T.E., Kozlowski, A., Rauscher, R.L. & Lauridson, P. 2004. Surveying

67 for Pygmy Rabbits (Brachylagus idahoensis), Fourth Draft. Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho. 25 pages.

Uresk, D. and K. Severson. 1989. Understory-overstory relationships in ponderosa pine forests, Black Hills, South Dakota. J. Range Management 42: 203-208.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2001. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding for a Petition to List the Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) in the Western Continental United States. 50 CFR Part 17, Federal Register 66(143): 38611-38626, July 25, 2001.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Recovery Plan for the Pacific Bald Eagle. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 160 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2013. Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes). Species Account, Pacific Southwest Region. 6 pages.

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Record of Decision, Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species Amendment. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. December, 2007. 18pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Forest Service Manual. Washington, D.C.

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. USDA Forest Service, Region 5, Vallejo, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2001. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. USDA Forest Service, Region 5, Vallejo, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Survey methodology for northern goshawks in the Pacific Southwest Region. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 18 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 1991. Modoc National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Modoc National Forest. Alturas, California.

Walker, Lauren E., Erick Greene, William Davison and Vincent R. Muehter. 2014. Steller's Jay (Cyanocitta stelleri), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/343

Weller, T. and C. Zabel. 2001. Characteristics of fringe-tailed myotis day roosts in northern California. Journal of Wildlife Management 65(3): 489-497.

Whitaker, J. O., Jr., C. Maser, and L. E. Keller. 1977. Food habits of bats of western Oregon. Northwest Science 51:46-55.

Wiebe, Karen L. and William S. Moore. 2008. Northern Flicker (Colaptes auratus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the

68 Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/166adoi:10.2173/bna.166

Wiens, J.D., R. Reynolds, and B. Noon. 2006. Juvenile movement and natal dispersal of northern goshawks in Arizona. Condor 108: 253-269.

Winter, J. 1980. Status and distribution of the great gray owl in California. Department of Fish and Game. Project # W-54-R12. Final Report – April 1980.

Woodbridge, B. and Hargis, C.D. 2006. Northern goshawk inventory and monitoring technical guide. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-71. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 80 p.

Wu, J.X., Siegel, R.B., Loffland, H.L., Tingley, M.W., Stock, S.L., Roberts, K.N., Keane, J.J., Medley, J.R., Bridgman, R. and C. Stermer. 2015. Diversity of great gray owl nest sites and nesting habitats in California. Journal of Wildlife Management, 79(6), pp.937-947.

Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, K.E. Mayer, and M. White. 1990. California’s wildlife, Volume III, Mammals. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. 407 pp.

Zielinski, W. J., K. M. Slauson, C. R. Carroll, C. J. Kent, and D. G. Kudrna. 2001. The status of American martens in coastal forests of the Pacific states. Journal of Mammalogy. 82:478-490.

Zielinski, W.J. and T.E. Kucera., technical editors. 1995. American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine: survey methods for their detection. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-157. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 163 pp.

Websites

California Department of Fish and Wildlife website (Pierson E. and W. Rainey), Fringe-tailed myotis (Myotis thysanodes). Terrestrial Mammal Species of concern in California www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/ssc/docs/mammal/species/14.pdf

Definition of habitat connectivity - http://books.google.com/books?id=tpMKTIoJixMC&pg=PA121&lpg=PA121&dq=habitat+conn ectivity+definition&source=bl&ots=YqjI3UfNHH&sig=4Gw7mJmPvmPHnvpgf9o- NQZuj7k&hl=en&ei= e3TvLyHMKXiALW_dGgAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnu m=5&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=habitat%20connectivity%20definition&f=false

Definition of holartic - http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/269108/Holarctic-region

Definition of WHR tree size - http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/rsl/projects/frdb/tables/table114b.html

NatureServe Online Encyclopedia of Life explorer.natureserve.org

Northern goshawk foraging - http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/298/articles/habitat.

69 Pallid bat distribution in California - http://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=2349&inline=1.

Pallid bat status in California - http://www.natureserve.org/explorer

Pallid bat connectivity - http://www.marinaudubon.org/pdf/FinalMarinBaylandsReport.pdf

USFWS bald eagle guidelines - https://www.fws.gov/southdakotafieldoffice/NationalBaldEagleManagementGuidelines.pdf

Western Bat Working Group – www.wbwg.com

70

APPENDIX A

Table 114B - Wildlife Habitat Relationships Standards for Tree Size

For more information regarding the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System go to Department of Fish and Game's WHR web page at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/

CWHR CWHR Size Conifer Crown Hardwood DBH Code Class Diameter Crown Diameter 1 Seedling tree n/a n/a <1.0" 2 Sapling tree n/a <15.0' 1.0" - 5.9" 3 Pole tree <12.0' 15.0' - 29.9' 6.0" - 10.9" 4 Small tree 12.0' - 23.9' 30.0' - 44.9' 11.0" - 23.9" 5 Medium/large tree >24.0' >45.0' >24.0" A distinct layer of size class 5 trees over a distinct layer of size class 4 and/or 3 trees, and total tree canopy of the layers >60% 6 Multi-layered tree (layers must have >10.0% canopy cover and distinctive height separation). Not Determined / 0 Not Applicable

Uneven-structure - >3 CWHR size classes, or if only 2 classes present, then the classes must skip an intervening class (e.g. 5 and 3 present but not 4) with distinctive height separation. Plots are even-structured if they do not meet uneven-structure definition.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/rsl/projects/frdb/tables/table114b.html

71

Appendix B

Acres of vegetation within the Buck Mountain Marten Territory

CWHR habitats for the Buck Mountain marten territory. CWHR Habitat Acres Aspen 3 Barren 9 Eastside Pine 3 P &S 1 Eastside Pine 4 P 6 Eastside Pine 4 D&M 31 Eastside Pine 5 D&M 10 Juniper 14 Lodgepole Pine - all 275 Mixed Chaparral 34 Perrenial grasslands 1 Sagebrush 121 Ponderosa Pine 4 D&M 11 Ponderosa Pine 4 D 69 Sierran Mixed Conifer 3 1 P Sierran Mixed Conifer 3 2 M Sierran Mixed Conifer 4 22 P Sierran Mixed Conifer 4 978 D&M Sierran Mixed Conifer 5 774 D&M Subalpine Conifer 4M 7 WFR 3 all densties 14 White Fir 4 P 32 White Fir 4 D&M 605 White Fir 5 D 420 Total 3,440

72